Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 9, 2021

Yu v. Froneri US, Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-08512
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Yu v. Froneri, Judge Nathan ordered Lauren Yu to state whether she will amend her complaint after Froneri’s motion to dismiss.

Who this affects

Lauren Yu and Froneri US, Inc.

What happened

In Yu v. Froneri US, Inc., Froneri US, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Lauren Yu’s complaint on March 5, 2021.

The court required Yu to notify the court and Froneri in writing by March 18 whether she would amend her complaint or rely on the existing pleading. The order warned that declining to amend in response to arguments in the motion might waive her ability to use amendment to correct defects identified in the briefing.

Judge Nathan did not decide the motion to dismiss. The order stated that if Yu amended, Froneri could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or rely on its original motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Yu v. Froneri US, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-08512
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Mar. 9, 2021

Background

On March 5, 2021, Froneri US, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Lauren Yu’s complaint. The order was issued under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases.

Order

The court required Yu, by March 18, 2021, to notify the court and Froneri in writing whether she intended to file an amended pleading and when she would do so, or whether she would rely on the complaint being challenged. The court warned that declining to amend in a timely response to a fully briefed argument in Froneri’s motion might constitute a waiver of Yu’s right to use the amendment process to cure defects made apparent by Froneri’s briefing.

If Yu amended her pleading, Froneri 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 filing a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. The order addressed the procedure for Yu’s possible amendment and Froneri’s possible response.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.