MV Controls, Inc. v. Circor International, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-09340
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In MV Controls v. Circor, Judge Nathan required a response about amending the complaint, stayed discovery, and adjourned the initial conference.
MV Controls, Inc. and Circor International, Inc.; the order required the plaintiff to choose how to respond to the motion to dismiss and paused the case’s discovery and pretrial schedule.
What happened
MV Controls, Inc. v. Circor International, Inc. concerns the defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed January 25, 2021. The court did not decide that motion in this order.
The court required the plaintiff to notify the court and the defendant by February 5 whether it would amend its pleading or rely on the existing pleading. If the plaintiff amended, the defendant could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on its original motion. The court warned that declining to amend in response to arguments in the motion might waive the opportunity to correct apparent defects through amendment.
Judge Alison J. Nathan adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 5 and stayed all discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved. The order stated that it did not change the amendment, answer, or motion deadlines provided by federal or local rules.
The detailed version
- MV Controls, Inc. v. Circor International, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09340
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on January 25, 2021. This order addressed the parties’ next steps under Rule 3.F. of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases; it did not rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss.
Required response about amendment
The court directed the plaintiff to notify the court and the defendant in writing by February 5, 2021, whether it intended to file an amended pleading and when it would do so, or whether it would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss. The court warned that declining to amend in a timely response to a fully briefed argument might constitute a waiver of the plaintiff’s opportunity to use the amendment process to cure defects made apparent by the defendant’s briefing. The order cited a Second Circuit decision discussing grounds on which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
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 the original motion.
Scheduling and discovery
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 5, 2021. It also stayed all discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending. The court stated that the order did not change the deadlines for amending, answering, or filing a motion established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules.
Disposition and effect
The court issued a procedural scheduling and pleading directive. It did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss, decide whether the pleading stated a claim, or otherwise resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.