Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-11101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L., Judge Nathan ordered plaintiffs to say by February 11 whether they will amend their pleading or rely on it.
The plaintiffs and Bank Audi S.A.L.; the plaintiffs were required to state whether they would amend their pleading or rely on it, and the defendant was given options if they amended.
What happened
In Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L., Bank Audi S.A.L. had filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ pleading on January 29, 2021.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to notify the court and Bank Audi S.A.L. by February 11 whether they would file an amended pleading and when, or rely on their existing pleading. The order warned that not timely amending in response to fully briefed arguments could amount to giving up the right to use the amendment process to fix defects identified in the motion.
Judge Alison J. Nathan did not decide the motion to dismiss. The order explained that, if the plaintiffs amended, Bank Audi S.A.L. could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that it would rely on its original motion.
The detailed version
- Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L. · No. 1:20-cv-11101
- Alison Nathan
- Feb. 2, 2021
Background
Bank Audi S.A.L. filed a motion to dismiss on January 29, 2021. The opinion does not decide the arguments in that motion.
Order
Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the plaintiffs had to notify the court and the defendant in writing by February 11, 2021, whether they intended to file an amended pleading and when they would do so, or whether they would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss.
The court warned that declining to amend in response to a fully briefed argument in the motion could result in waiver of the plaintiffs’ right to use the amendment process to cure defects made apparent by the defendant’s briefing. The court cited a Second Circuit decision discussing circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If the plaintiffs amended, Bank Audi S.A.L. could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that it would rely on its original motion. The order also stated that it did not change the deadlines for amending, answering, or moving under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued a procedural order concerning the plaintiffs’ response to the pending motion to dismiss. The court did not grant or deny that motion and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.