Roberts v. Gitelis
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-09694
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Roberts v. Gitelis, Judge Furman denied Michael Gitelis’s dismissal motion as moot, removed him as a party, and scheduled further proceedings.
Louis Roberts, Justin Gitelis, and Michael Gitelis; the order terminated Michael Gitelis as a party and set deadlines and pretrial requirements for the remaining parties.
What happened
Roberts v. Gitelis involved an amended complaint that named only Justin Gitelis as a defendant. Michael Gitelis had been named in earlier complaints.
Because Michael Gitelis was no longer named in the amended complaint, the court denied his motion to dismiss as moot and directed the Clerk to terminate him as a party. Justin Gitelis was ordered to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by March 22, 2021.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also ordered the remaining parties to attend an initial pretrial conference on March 31, 2021, and to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management schedule beforehand.
The detailed version
- Roberts v. Gitelis · No. 1:20-cv-09694
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 2, 2021
Background
Louis Roberts filed an amended complaint on March 1, 2021, naming only Justin Gitelis as a defendant. Michael Gitelis had been named as a defendant in Roberts’s earlier complaints and had filed a motion to dismiss.
Ruling on the Motion
Because the amended complaint no longer named Michael Gitelis, the court denied Michael Gitelis’s motion to dismiss as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 30, terminate Michael Gitelis as a party, and update the case caption. Justin Gitelis was ordered to file an amended answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint no later than March 22, 2021.
Further Proceedings
The court ordered the remaining parties to appear for an initial pretrial conference on March 31, 2021, at 4:45 p.m. Before the conference, the parties had to confer about settlement and other matters covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. They also had to file a joint letter of no more than five pages and attach a proposed civil case management plan and scheduling order. The letter had to address the nature of the action and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, outstanding motions, completed and needed discovery, prior settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute-resolution methods, and other information useful to moving the case toward settlement or trial.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.