Torres v. City Of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-10210
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Torres v. City of New York, Judge Cronan granted amendment and denied defendants’ dismissal and oral-argument motions as moot.
The plaintiffs, Jaime Torres and Rakesh Kalra, were allowed to file an amended complaint. The defendants’ pending motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ request for oral argument were denied as moot, and the order set deadlines for responding to the amended complaint.
What happened
In Torres v. City of New York, Jaime Torres and Rakesh Kalra asked to file an amended complaint. The defendants took no position on that request.
The court found no undue delay, bad faith, unfair prejudice, or futility that would justify denying the amendment. It ordered the plaintiffs to file the amended complaint by July 6, 2021.
Judge Cronan granted the request to amend, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, and denied the plaintiffs’ request for oral argument on that motion as moot. The defendants’ response to the amended complaint was due July 27, 2021.
The detailed version
- Torres v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10210
- John Cronan
- July 1, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs Jaime Torres and Rakesh Kalra, individually and on behalf of all others, sued the City of New York, acting through the New York City Police Department and New York City Department of Finance, among others. On June 30, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a letter motion seeking permission to file an amended complaint. The defendants took no position on that request.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court explained that it may deny permission for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or unfair prejudice to the opposing party. The court found that none of those considerations weighed against allowing the amendment, and the defendants did not argue otherwise.
Rulings and deadlines
The court granted the plaintiffs’ letter motion for permission to file an amended complaint. It ordered the plaintiffs to file that complaint by July 6, 2021.
The court denied as moot the defendants’ motion to dismiss at Docket Number 26. It also denied as moot the plaintiffs’ motion requesting oral argument on the defendants’ motion at Docket Number 29. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at Docket Numbers 26, 29, and 31.
The defendants were ordered to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by July 27, 2021. If they filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, they could do so without first filing a pre-motion letter. The plaintiffs’ opposition would then be due August 10, 2021, and any reply would be due August 17, 2021. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.