Olive Group North America LLC v. Afghanistan International Bank
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-10836
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Olive Group v. Afghanistan International Bank, Judge Nathan directed plaintiffs to choose whether to amend their pleading or oppose the pending dismissal motion.
Olive Group North America LLC and the other plaintiffs, as well as the defendants who filed the motion to dismiss.
What happened
Olive Group North America LLC and other plaintiffs sued Afghanistan International Bank, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 4, 2022. The order did not decide that motion.
The court required the plaintiffs, by March 18, 2022, to state whether they would file an amended pleading and when, or rely on the pleading challenged by the motion. If the plaintiffs amended, defendants could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or state that they relied on their original motion.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could waive the right to use amendment to correct defects identified by defendants. The order stated that it did not change deadlines under the federal or local rules.
The detailed version
- Olive Group North America LLC v. Afghanistan International Bank · No. 1:21-cv-10836
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 8, 2022
Background
On March 4, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The order 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 plaintiffs had to notify the court and defendants in writing by March 18, 2022, whether they intended to file an amended pleading and when they would do so, or whether they would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss.
The court warned that declining to amend in a timely response to a fully briefed argument could constitute a waiver of the plaintiffs' right to use the amendment process to correct defects made apparent by defendants' briefing. The court cited a prior decision discussing grounds that can support denying permission to amend, including undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, and futility.
If the plaintiffs amended, 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 the order did not alter the time to amend, answer, or move under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.
Disposition and significance
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the case. It set out the plaintiffs' required response concerning amendment and the defendants' possible next steps. The order was signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.