Carmody v. Verizon New York, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:21-cv-07235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Carmody v. Verizon New York, Inc., Judge Netburn ordered Carmody to amend his pleading or oppose Verizon’s dismissal motion.
Sean Carmody and Verizon New York, Inc.
What happened
Carmody v. Verizon New York, Inc. involved Verizon’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or Verizon’s arguments.
The court gave Carmody until January 6, 2022, to file an amended pleading or oppose the motion. If Carmody amended, Verizon could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on its original motion.
Judge Sarah Netburn entered the order after Judge Alison Nathan referred the case for pretrial management and a recommendation on the motion. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Carmody v. Verizon New York, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07235
- Alison Nathan
- Dec. 10, 2021
Background
The plaintiff, Sean Carmody, sued Verizon New York, Inc. The opinion does not state the claims or provide the parties’ substantive arguments. On December 8, 2021, Judge Alison Nathan referred the case to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn for general pretrial management and a report and recommendation on Verizon’s motion to dismiss.
Order
The court ordered Carmody, by January 6, 2022, to either file an amended pleading or oppose Verizon’s motion to dismiss. The court warned that declining to amend while failing to respond timely to fully briefed arguments could waive the opportunity to use amendment to correct defects identified in Verizon’s briefing.
If Carmody amended the pleading, Verizon could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that it relied on its original motion. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the case.
Effect
Judge Sarah Netburn’s order set the next procedural steps for the plaintiff and defendant. It left Verizon’s motion to dismiss pending.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.