Cunningham v. On Deck Capital, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-10621
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cunningham v. On Deck Capital, Judge Nathan set deadlines for amendment and briefing on Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
Craig Cunningham and the Defendants, including On Deck Capital, Inc., were affected by the amendment and motion-to-dismiss briefing deadlines.
What happened
In Cunningham v. On Deck Capital, Inc., Defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). The order did not decide that motion.
The court gave Plaintiff until April 2, 2021, to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint and was to include all information needed to explain why Plaintiff believed he was entitled to relief. If Plaintiff amended, Defendants could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that they would rely on their original motion.
If Plaintiff did not amend, he had to serve his opposition to the motion by April 2, and Defendants could serve a reply by April 16. Judge Alison J. Nathan also allowed either party to request an extension upon showing diligence and a good reason.
The detailed version
- Cunningham v. On Deck Capital, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10621
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 2, 2021
Background
On February 26, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and amended complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order does not describe the arguments in that motion or decide whether the pleadings were legally sufficient.
Order
The court ordered that Plaintiff could file an amended complaint by April 2, 2021. The court stated that an amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint. It directed Plaintiff to include all information he believed was necessary to make a short, plain statement explaining why he was entitled to relief against Defendants.
The court warned that failing to amend by the deadline in response to a fully briefed argument in Defendants’ motion could constitute a waiver of the right to use the amendment process to correct defects identified in Defendants’ briefing.
If Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, Defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they intended to rely on their original motion. If Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, he had to serve his opposition to Defendants’ motion by April 2, 2021. Defendants’ reply, if any, was due April 16, 2021.
Other Procedural Directions
Either party could request an extension of the briefing schedule. The court stated that a deadline would be extended if the requesting party showed that it had pursued the action diligently and had a good reason for the extension. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Plaintiff.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan set deadlines and procedures for amendment and briefing. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the parties’ dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.