Taylor v. Microgenics Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-06452
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Taylor v. Microgenics Corporation, Judge Briccetti extended service time, denied a moot request, and set deadlines for amendment and motions.
Taylor, the defendants with pending motions to dismiss, and Officers Berry, Brandon, S, and Hernandez, who received an extended service deadline.
What happened
In Taylor v. Microgenics Corporation, Microgenics and Thermo Fisher Scientific had pending motions asking the court to dismiss the complaint. Six correction officers also moved to dismiss. The case also named four officers who had not been shown to have been served or to have appeared.
The court found good cause to extend Taylor’s deadline to serve Officers Berry, Brandon, S, and Hernandez to February 28, 2022. It denied as moot Taylor’s request for more time to serve Rubio because Rubio had appeared through the New York Attorney General’s Office and had moved to dismiss.
Judge Briccetti lifted the stay on Taylor’s response deadline and required Taylor to notify the court by January 10, 2022, whether he would amend the complaint or rely on the existing complaint. The order did not decide the pending motions to dismiss. If Taylor chose to amend, the amended complaint was due within 14 days after the notice, and defendants then had 21 days to answer, move to dismiss, or rely on their earlier motion.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. Microgenics Corporation · No. 7:21-cv-06452
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Gladstone Taylor sued Microgenics Corporation, Thermo Fisher Scientific, several correction officers, a district attorney, and unnamed correction officers. Microgenics moved to dismiss the complaint, and Thermo Fisher Scientific joined that motion. Officers Rubio, Iccari, Mulligan, Glover, Hilton, and Wu later moved to dismiss as well. The court had stayed Taylor’s deadline to respond to those motions.
As of December 22, 2021, the docket did not show that Officers Berry, Brandon, S, and Hernandez had been served or had appeared. The court had directed that the action against those four officers would be dismissed without prejudice unless Taylor filed proof of service by December 29, 2021, or showed good cause for the failure to serve them. Taylor showed good cause, so the court extended the service deadline to February 28, 2022. Taylor was required either to serve those officers and file proof of service by that date or to request another extension. The court stated that it would dismiss the case against those four officers if he did neither.
Rulings and deadlines
Taylor also sought additional time to serve Rubio. The court denied that request as moot because the New York Attorney General’s Office had appeared for Rubio and Rubio had moved to dismiss the complaint.
The court separately lifted the stay on Taylor’s deadline to respond to the pending motions to dismiss. It ordered Taylor to notify the court by January 10, 2022, whether he intended to file an amended complaint or would rely on the existing complaint. If Taylor relied on the existing complaint, the motions to dismiss would proceed under the ordinary schedule, and the court warned that it was unlikely to give him another chance to amend based on deficiencies revealed by fully briefed arguments. If Taylor chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, each defendant could answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that it relied on the original motion to dismiss.
What the order did not decide
The order did not decide whether Taylor’s claims were legally sufficient or whether the defendants were entitled to dismissal. It addressed service, the moot extension request, the stay, and the schedule for a possible amended complaint and responses. Judge Briccetti signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.