Bobcar Media, LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-05685
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bobcar Media v. Deutsche Telekom, Judge Nathan required a response about amendment after defendants moved to dismiss and adjourned the initial conference.
Bobcar Media, LLC and the defendants in the pending case, including Deutsche Telekom AG.
What happened
In Bobcar Media, LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 12, 2022.
The court ordered Bobcar Media to notify the court and defendants by January 25 whether it would amend its pleading or rely on the existing pleading. If Bobcar Media amended, defendants could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on their original motion.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that declining to amend could affect the plaintiff’s ability to correct defects identified in the defendants’ briefing. She also adjourned the initial pretrial conference pending resolution of the motion.
The detailed version
- Bobcar Media, LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG · No. 1:21-cv-05685
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Jan. 13, 2022
What the Order Did
On January 12, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The court’s January 13 order did not decide that motion. Instead, it directed Bobcar Media, LLC to notify the court and the defendants in writing by January 25 whether it intended to file an amended pleading and when, or whether it would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion.
Possible Next Steps
If Bobcar Media amended its pleading, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on the original motion. The order stated that it did not change the deadlines for amending, answering, or filing a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules.
Other Ruling
The court warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could potentially waive the opportunity to use the amendment process to correct defects identified in the defendants’ briefing. Judge Alison J. Nathan also adjourned the initial pretrial conference, which had been scheduled for January 21, pending resolution of the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.