Lipsman v. Cortes-Vazquez
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-04631
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lipsman v. Cortes-Vazquez, Judge Furman gave the pro se plaintiff another chance to amend a complaint that failed basic pleading rules.
Daniel Jean Lipsman received another opportunity to amend his complaint and was reminded of related filing deadlines. Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez was given different response options depending on whether Lipsman filed another amended complaint.
What happened
In Lipsman v. Cortes-Vazquez, Daniel Jean Lipsman filed an amended complaint after the court directed him to oppose the defendant’s dismissal motion or amend his complaint. The court found that the filing did not clearly explain the claim or provide facts supporting liability.
The court said the filing did not meet Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short, plain statement showing entitlement to relief. Lipsman’s filing asked the court to treat the matter as a class action and referred to possible rights violations involving senior centers, but it did not allege the agency action he challenged.
Judge Furman granted Lipsman another opportunity to file an amended complaint by July 8, 2021. The new complaint would replace, rather than add to, the original complaint; the defendant could then answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on the earlier motion. The court did not decide the merits of Lipsman’s claims.
The detailed version
- Lipsman v. Cortes-Vazquez · No. 1:21-cv-04631
- Jesse Furman
- June 25, 2021
Background
The court had directed Daniel Jean Lipsman to file either an opposition to Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez’s motion to dismiss or an amended complaint by July 8, 2021. Lipsman filed an opposition on June 23 and a document he called an amended complaint on June 24.
Pleading problem
The court held that the purported amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court also cited the requirement that a complaint include enough factual content to allow a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.
The court said Lipsman’s filing did not satisfy those requirements. It asked the court to treat the matter as a class action and stated that an agency action—an action not alleged in the filing—violated the rights of “aggrieved members” of 250 senior centers in New York City funded in part by the New York City Department for the Aging. The filing referred to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection provision.
Ruling and next steps
Because Lipsman was representing himself, the court granted him another opportunity to file an amended complaint that satisfies Rule 8. The court stated that any new amended complaint would replace, not supplement, the original complaint and must include sufficient factual allegations supporting the claims. The deadline was July 8, 2021.
If Lipsman filed an amended complaint, Cortes-Vazquez was directed, within two weeks, to answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or notify the court that she relied on the previously filed motion. If Lipsman did not file by the deadline, Cortes-Vazquez was directed to file a reply to Lipsman’s opposition by July 15, 2021. The court also said that if Lipsman filed an amended complaint, it would disregard his opposition and would not require a reply. The court did not rule on the merits of the claims or on the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.