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

Gordon v. Admin Recovery, LLC

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-10017
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gordon v. Admin Recovery, LLC, Judge Briccetti gave Gordon a choice about amending the complaint before deciding the defendant’s motion.

Who this affects

The order affected Shifra Gordon and Admin Recovery, LLC by setting the plaintiff’s amendment choice and the defendant’s possible responses.

What happened

In Gordon v. Admin Recovery, LLC, Admin Recovery moved for judgment on the pleadings on January 29, 2021. The court had not yet decided that motion.

The court ordered the plaintiff to tell it by February 8 whether she wanted permission to file an amended complaint or would rely on the existing complaint. If she chose amendment, the court stated that it intended to grant permission, but she would have to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court.

Judge Briccetti also set out the defendant’s options after an amendment and explained that, without an amendment, the motion would proceed under the regular schedule. This order addressed case management and amendment procedures; it did not rule on the merits of the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gordon v. Admin Recovery, LLC · No. 7:20-cv-10017
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Feb. 1, 2021

Background

On January 29, 2021, Admin Recovery, LLC moved for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion does not decide that motion.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiff to notify it by letter no later than February 8, 2021, whether she would request leave—permission—to file an amended complaint in response to the motion, or would rely on the complaint already challenged by the motion.

If the plaintiff chose not to amend, the motion would proceed in the regular course. The court stated that it was unlikely to give the plaintiff another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies identified by the fully briefed motion. The deadlines for opposing and reply papers would be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules unless the court ordered otherwise.

If the plaintiff notified the court that she intended to request leave to amend, the court stated that it intended to grant that leave. The amended complaint had to be filed no later than 14 days after the notification. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendant could answer and file a renewed motion for judgment on the amended pleadings, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court by letter that it would rely on its original motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Effect of the Order

Judge Briccetti issued a procedural scheduling and amendment order. The order did not grant or deny the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings and did not decide whether the complaint stated a valid claim.

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.