Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc.
- Kimba Wood
- 1:20-cv-09215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Judge Nathan set deadlines after a motion to dismiss, stayed discovery, and adjourned the initial conference.
Josue Romero and 88 Acres Foods, Inc.; the order required Romero to state whether he would amend his pleading, gave 88 Acres Foods options if he amended, adjourned the initial pretrial conference, and stayed discovery.
What happened
In Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc., the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on January 25, 2021. The order did not decide that motion.
The court required the plaintiff to state by February 5 whether he would amend his complaint or rely on the existing pleading. If he amended, the defendant could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or rely on its original motion. The court also postponed the initial pretrial conference and stayed discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved.
Judge Alison J. Nathan entered the order on January 27, 2021. The order stated that it did not change the deadlines provided by the federal or local rules.
The detailed version
- Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09215
- Kimba Wood
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on January 25, 2021. This order addressed the plaintiff’s response to that motion and case-management deadlines; it did not resolve the motion to dismiss.
Directions Concerning Amendment
Under Rule 3.F. of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the plaintiff had to notify the court and the defendant in writing by February 5, 2021, whether he intended to file an amended pleading and when, or whether he would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss. The court warned that declining to amend in response to a fully briefed motion could result in waiver of the opportunity to use the amendment process to cure defects identified in the defendant’s briefing.
If the plaintiff amended, the defendant could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that it relied on its original motion to dismiss.
Case-Management Rulings
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 5, 2021. It also stayed all discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved. The order stated that it did not alter the time to amend, answer, or move provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s Local Rules.
Disposition and Classification
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued a procedural order setting amendment and response procedures and adjusting case-management matters. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the case. It is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.