1800 Fee Owner LLC v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-09354
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 1800 Fee Owner LLC v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Judge Nathan ordered plaintiffs to say whether they will amend their pleading or rely on it.
The plaintiff and defendants in 1800 Fee Owner LLC et al. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al.; the plaintiff had to choose how to respond to the pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In 1800 Fee Owner LLC v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 28, 2022. The order did not decide that motion.
The court required the plaintiff to notify the court and defendants by February 11, 2022, whether it would file an amended pleading or rely on the pleading challenged by the motion. The order warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments might waive the right to use amendment to correct defects identified in those arguments.
If the plaintiff amended, the defendants could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that they relied on their original motion. Judge Nathan stated that the order did not change deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules.
The detailed version
- 1800 Fee Owner LLC v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · No. 1:21-cv-09354
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 31, 2022
Background
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 28, 2022. The opinion does not describe the claims or the arguments in that motion.
Order
Under Rule 3.F. of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the plaintiff had to notify the court and the defendants in writing by February 11, 2022, whether it intended to file an amended pleading and when, or whether it would rely on the pleading challenged by the defendants’ motion.
The court warned that declining to amend in a timely response to a fully briefed argument might waive the plaintiff’s ability to use the amendment process to correct defects made apparent by the defendants’ briefing. The order cited an earlier Second Circuit decision concerning circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, or futility.
If the plaintiff amended, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on their initial motion. The order stated that it did not alter the deadlines for amending, answering, or moving under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules.
Disposition
This was a case-management order concerning the plaintiff’s response to a pending motion to dismiss. Judge Nathan did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.