Eisenberg v. The County of Westchester
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-04507
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Eisenberg v. Westchester County, Judge Briccetti ordered Eisenberg to choose between amending his complaint and opposing defendants’ dismissal motion.
Michael Eisenberg and the defendants, whose motion to dismiss remained pending while Eisenberg decided whether to file a second amended complaint.
What happened
Eisenberg v. The County of Westchester concerns defendants’ motion to dismiss Michael Eisenberg’s amended complaint.
The court ordered Eisenberg to notify the court by June 14, 2021, whether he would file a second amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If he chose to amend, defendants could answer, move to dismiss the new complaint, or rely on their existing motion.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the motion to dismiss. He stated that the motion would proceed if Eisenberg relied on the existing complaint and that the court was unlikely to allow another amendment later to address deficiencies raised in the motion.
The detailed version
- Eisenberg v. The County of Westchester · No. 7:21-cv-04507
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 8, 2021
Background
On June 4, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss Michael Eisenberg’s amended complaint. The opinion does not describe the claims or the alleged facts underlying the complaint.
Order
The court ordered Eisenberg to notify it by June 14, 2021, whether he intended to file a second amended complaint or would rely on the amended complaint challenged by the motion to dismiss.
If Eisenberg chose not to file a second amended complaint, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the normal schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to grant him another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion.
If Eisenberg chose to file a second amended complaint, he had to file it within 14 days after notifying the court of that decision. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendants could file an answer, file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, or notify the court that they relied on their initially filed motion.
Disposition and Significance
The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the claims. The order instead set out Eisenberg’s amendment options and the defendants’ possible responses. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.