Rabadi v. City of Yonkers
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-01258
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rabadi v. City of Yonkers, Judge Briccetti set deadlines for amendment and responses while dismissal and replevin motions remained pending.
Joseph Rabadi, the City of Yonkers, Miriam E. Rocah, and County Auto & Commercial Towing North, Inc.; the order primarily set Rabadi’s deadlines and the defendants’ response options.
What happened
Joseph Rabadi sued the City of Yonkers, Miriam E. Rocah in her official capacity, and County Auto & Commercial Towing North, Inc. Rabadi had moved for a writ of replevin, and Rocah moved to dismiss the complaint.
The court ordered Rabadi to notify it by March 29, 2021, whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on his existing complaint. He also had to respond by that date to the part of Rocah’s motion opposing the requested writ. The City of Yonkers had not answered, moved, or otherwise responded to the complaint by the date of the order.
Judge Briccetti did not decide the dismissal motion or the request for a writ. He set procedures and deadlines for any amended complaint and for the defendants’ responses.
The detailed version
- Rabadi v. City of Yonkers · No. 7:21-cv-01258
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Joseph Rabadi filed a complaint against the City of Yonkers, Miriam E. Rocah in her official capacity as district attorney for Westchester County, and County Auto & Commercial Towing North, Inc. Rabadi had moved for a writ of replevin. County Auto filed an answer and a crossclaim against the City of Yonkers and Rocah.
Rocah moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Rocah also asked the court to deny Rabadi’s request for a writ of replevin under Rule 64(b). The opinion does not state that the court ruled on either request.
Order
The court ordered Rabadi to notify it by March 29, 2021, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to Rocah’s motion or would rely on the existing complaint. By the same date, Rabadi had to respond to the part of Rocah’s motion opposing the request for a writ of replevin.
If Rabadi chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the ordinary schedule, and the court warned that it was unlikely to give him another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion. If Rabadi chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, defendants could answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they would rely on the original motion to dismiss.
The order also noted that the City of Yonkers had missed its March 9, 2021 deadline to answer and had not answered, moved, or otherwise responded to the complaint.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered a procedural scheduling order. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss, did not grant or deny the request for a writ of replevin, and did not resolve the claims or crossclaim. It established deadlines and the parties’ available next steps.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.