Jane Doe 7015 v. Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-06868
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jane Doe 2015 v. Elekra Entertainment Group, Judge Nathan ordered a response about amending the complaint after defendants moved to dismiss.
The order affected Jane Doe 2015 and the defendants Elekra Entertainment Group Inc., Warner Communications LLC, and Warner Music Group Corp. It set a deadline for the plaintiff's response regarding amendment and identified the defendants' possible responses if an amended pleading was filed.
What happened
In Jane Doe 2015 v. Elekra Entertainment Group Inc., the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 14, 2022. The order did not decide that motion.
The court required the plaintiff to notify the court and the defendants by February 24, 2022, whether she would file an amended pleading or rely on the existing pleading. The order warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could waive the opportunity to use amendment to correct identified defects.
If the plaintiff amended, the defendants could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that they relied on the original motion. Judge Alison J. Nathan also stated that the order did not change deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules.
The detailed version
- Jane Doe 7015 v. Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06868
- John Cronan
- Feb. 15, 2022
Background
On February 14, 2022, Elekra Entertainment Group Inc., Warner Communications LLC, and Warner Music Group Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's pleading. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the arguments in that motion.
Order
Under Rule 3.E. of the court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the plaintiff had to notify the court and the defendants in writing by February 24, 2022, whether she intended to file an amended pleading and when, or whether she would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss. The court warned that declining to amend in response to a fully briefed argument could waive the plaintiff's right to use the amendment process to correct defects made apparent by the defendants' briefing.
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 the initially filed motion. The court stated that nothing in the order changed the time to amend, answer, or move under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules.
Disposition and significance
The order addressed the plaintiff's response to the pending motion and possible amendment of the pleading; it did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the case. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.