Di Lello v. Coviello
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-09180
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Di Lello v. Coviello, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiff to choose whether to amend again or proceed on his existing complaint.
Dario Di Lello and the defendants, including Anthony Coviello, the Town of Beekman, and Mary Covuccti.
What happened
In Di Lello v. Coviello, the defendants had asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint. The court did not decide that request in this order.
The court required Di Lello to notify the court by February 12, 2021, whether he would file a second amended complaint or rely on the existing one. If he chose to amend, he had 14 days after notifying the court to file the new complaint.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti stated that, if Di Lello did not amend, the dismissal motion would proceed under the usual rules and the court was unlikely to allow another amendment to address deficiencies identified in the motion. The defendants would then have 21 days after any second amended complaint to answer, file a new dismissal motion, or state that they relied on their original motion.
The detailed version
- Di Lello v. Coviello · No. 7:20-cv-09180
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 1, 2021
Background
On January 29, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The order does not describe the underlying claims or decide whether the amended complaint stated a valid claim.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff to notify it by February 12, 2021, whether he intended to file a second amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss or would rely on the amended complaint already being challenged.
If the plaintiff chose not to file a second amended complaint, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's Local Civil Rules. The court stated that it was unlikely to give the plaintiff another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion. The order cited appellate decisions concerning circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If the plaintiff chose to file a second amended complaint, he had to file it within 14 days after notifying the court of that decision. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendants could answer the second amended complaint, file a motion to dismiss it, or notify the court that they were relying on the initially filed motion to dismiss.
Disposition and Effect
This order set deadlines and procedures for responding to the pending motion to dismiss; it did not grant or deny that motion. The order was signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.