429-441 86th Street LLC v. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-01356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In 429-441 86th Street LLC v. Town Sports, Judge Carter declined to require a complaint and ordered an answer and case schedule.
429-441 86th Street LLC and Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.; the order determined how the case would proceed and set deadlines for the defendant's answer and the parties' status report.
What happened
429-441 86th Street LLC began the matter in New York state court by filing a motion for summary judgment instead of a complaint. The parties sent letters about how the case should proceed.
The court considered whether to require the plaintiff to file a complaint, explaining that the decision was within its discretion. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or claims.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. declined to require a complaint. He ordered the defendant to file an answer by March 23, 2021, and ordered the parties to submit a status report with a proposed briefing schedule by March 30, 2021.
The detailed version
- 429-441 86th Street LLC v. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01356
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
The plaintiff initiated the matter in New York state court by filing a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint. The court received letters from the parties addressing how the matter should proceed.
Issue
The issue addressed was whether the plaintiff would be required to file a complaint before the case proceeded. The court cited authority stating that this decision rests within the court's discretion.
Ruling and case schedule
The court declined to require the plaintiff to file a complaint. It ordered the defendant to file an answer by March 23, 2021. It also ordered the parties to file, by March 30, 2021, a status report containing a proposed schedule for briefing the plaintiff's summary-judgment motion and any other motions then contemplated.
The order addressed case procedure and scheduling; it did not decide the merits of the plaintiff's summary-judgment motion or describe the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.