Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 1, 2021

Nash Jr. v. Finkelstein Memorial Library

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-09821
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Nash Jr. v. Finkelstein Memorial Library, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiffs to choose between amending their complaint and proceeding on it despite defendants’ dismissal motions.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and the defendants Finkelstein Memorial Library and East Ramapo Central School District were affected by the amendment and response deadlines. The order does not state that defendant Glaudin Blanchard filed a dismissal motion.

What happened

Finkelstein Memorial Library and East Ramapo Central School District separately asked the court to dismiss the complaint on January 28, 2021.

Judge Briccetti ordered the plaintiffs to tell the court by February 8 whether they would file an amended complaint or rely on their existing complaint. If they amend, they must do so within 14 days after notifying the court, and the defendants then have 21 days to respond in one of the ways listed in the order.

The order did not decide the dismissal motions or the claims. It set deadlines and procedures for possible amendment and further briefing, as ordered by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nash Jr. v. Finkelstein Memorial Library · No. 7:20-cv-09821
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Feb. 1, 2021

Background

On January 28, 2021, Finkelstein Memorial Library and East Ramapo Central School District separately moved to dismiss the complaint. The order does not decide whether those motions should be granted or denied.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to notify it by February 8, 2021, whether they would either:

1. file an amended complaint in response to the motions to dismiss; or 2. rely on the complaint already challenged by those motions.

If the plaintiffs chose not to amend, the dismissal motions would proceed under the regular schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies identified by the fully briefed motions.

If the plaintiffs chose to amend, they had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendants could file an answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court by letter that they would rely on their original dismissal motions. The deadlines for opposing and reply papers would otherwise be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules, unless the court ordered otherwise.

Disposition

This was a procedural order concerning amendment and the handling of pending motions to dismiss. The court did not grant or deny those motions and did not resolve the underlying claims. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.