HERMES INTERNATIONAL and HERMES OF PARIS v. "MASON ROTHSCHILD" a/k/a SONNY…
HERMES INTERNATIONAL and HERMES OF PARIS, INC. v. "MASON ROTHSCHILD" a/k/a SONNY ESTIVAL
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:22-cv-00384
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hermes International v. Mason Rothschild, Judge Nathan required plaintiffs to state whether they would amend their complaint or rely on it.
The plaintiffs had to choose how to proceed with their pleading by February 23, 2022. If they amended, the defendant could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or rely on its original motion.
What happened
In Hermes International and Hermes of Paris, Inc. v. "Mason Rothschild" a/k/a Sonny Estival, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the court directed the plaintiffs to respond about their complaint.
By February 23, 2022, the plaintiffs had to tell the court and the defendant whether they would file an amended complaint and when, or rely on the existing complaint. If they amended, the defendant could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that it relied on its original motion.
The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims. Judge Alison J. Nathan also stated that the order did not change the deadlines under the federal or local rules.
The detailed version
- HERMES INTERNATIONAL and HERMES OF PARIS v. "MASON ROTHSCHILD" a/k/a SONNY… · No. 1:22-cv-00384
- Jed Rakoff
- Feb. 10, 2022
What the Court Ordered
On February 9, 2022, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The court required the plaintiffs, by February 23, 2022, to notify the court and the defendant in writing whether they would file an amended pleading and identify when they would do so, or rely on the pleading challenged by the motion.
Amendment Warning
The court warned that declining to amend in response to a fully briefed argument could later be treated as giving up the opportunity to use the amendment process to correct defects made apparent by the defendant’s briefing. The order cited a Second Circuit decision discussing circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or futility.
Defendant’s Options if Plaintiffs Amend
If the plaintiffs amended, the defendant could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that it relied on its initially filed motion to dismiss.
Effect of the Order
The court stated that nothing in the order changed the time allowed to amend, answer, or move under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the parties’ claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.