Bleyzer v. Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Company
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-09069
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bleyzer v. Great West Life, Judge Briccetti directed the plaintiff to choose between amending his complaint and proceeding against a pending partial dismissal motion.
Michael V. Bleyzer, DDS, and Great Westlife & Annuity Insurance Company
What happened
In Bleyzer v. Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, the defendant had filed a motion asking the court to dismiss part of the complaint for failure to state a claim. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or decide whether the motion should be granted.
The court ordered Michael V. Bleyzer, DDS, to notify the court by January 13, 2022, whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on his existing complaint. If he chose to amend, he had 14 days after notifying the court to file the amendment.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti stated that, if Bleyzer relied on the existing complaint, the dismissal motion would proceed under the ordinary schedule and the court was unlikely to allow another amendment later to address deficiencies identified in the motion. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Bleyzer v. Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Company · No. 7:21-cv-09069
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 4, 2022
Background
Michael V. Bleyzer, DDS, sued Great Westlife & Annuity Insurance Company, also known as Great West Financial. On January 3, 2022, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss part of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Bleyzer to notify the court by January 13, 2022, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already filed.
If Bleyzer chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed in the ordinary course. The court stated that it was unlikely to give Bleyzer another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion.
If Bleyzer chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendant could answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that it relied on its initial motion to dismiss.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued a case-management order concerning the pending motion to dismiss. The order did not grant or deny that motion and did not decide the sufficiency of the complaint.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.