Abraham v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-08723
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Abraham v. Nationwide Credit, Judge Briccetti extended Abraham’s deadline to amend or oppose a dismissal motion.
Yoel Abraham and Nationwide Credit, Inc.; the order extended Abraham’s deadline and warned of the consequences of taking no action.
What happened
In Abraham v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the defendant asked the court to dismiss the complaint. The court gave Yoel Abraham the choice to file an amended complaint or oppose the dismissal request.
Abraham told the court he intended to amend the complaint, but he did not file an amended complaint by the January 19 deadline. He also did not oppose the dismissal request or ask for more time.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti extended the deadline to February 4, 2021. The court warned that if Abraham took no action, the original complaint would remain operative and the dismissal request would be treated as unopposed.
The detailed version
- Abraham v. Nationwide Credit, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-08723
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 28, 2021
Background
Nationwide Credit, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss on December 21, 2020. The court then directed Yoel Abraham to state whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response or instead rely on the existing complaint and oppose the motion under the ordinary federal rules.
Abraham notified the court on January 4, 2021, that he intended to amend the complaint. The court ordered him to file the amended complaint by January 19, 2021. By January 28, he had not filed an amended complaint, opposed the motion to dismiss, or requested additional time.
Ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti extended Abraham’s time to file an amended complaint, oppose the pending motion to dismiss, or request additional time until February 4, 2021. The order warned that if Abraham did none of those things, the original complaint would be treated as the operative complaint and Nationwide Credit’s motion to dismiss would be deemed unopposed. The court also stated that it was unlikely to give Abraham another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies identified in the fully briefed motion. The order did not decide the merits of the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.