Alexander v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-09148
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Alexander v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Judge Briccetti ordered Alexander to choose whether to amend her complaint before defendant’s dismissal motion proceeds.
Syuzanna Alexander and Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.; the order set deadlines for Alexander’s possible amended complaint and Wegmans’s response.
What happened
Alexander v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. concerns defendant’s March 26, 2021, motion to dismiss the complaint. The order does not describe the underlying claims or the arguments in that motion.
The court ordered plaintiff Syuzanna Alexander to notify the court by April 5, 2021, whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If she chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Wegmans then could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or state that it relied on its original motion.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the dismissal motion in this order. He stated that if Alexander relied on the existing complaint, the motion would proceed under the regular schedule, and the court was unlikely to allow another amendment opportunity to address deficiencies identified in the fully briefed motion.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-09148
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
On March 26, 2021, Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint. The opinion does not identify the claims, explain the alleged facts, or summarize the parties’ arguments on that motion.
Order
The court ordered Syuzanna Alexander to notify the court by letter no later than April 5, 2021, whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already filed.
If Alexander chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the regular schedule. The court also stated that it was unlikely to give Alexander another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed arguments in the motion. The order cited Second Circuit decisions discussing circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If Alexander chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, Wegmans could file an answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court by letter that it relied on its original motion to dismiss. The time for opposition and reply papers would otherwise be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules, unless the court ordered otherwise.
Disposition and significance
This order set amendment and response procedures; it did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the complaint. The court’s order was signed by United States District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.