Stark v. AFNI, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-08868
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Stark v. AFNI, Inc., Judge Briccetti ordered Stark to choose whether to amend her complaint or oppose AFNI’s Rule 12(c) motion.
Breindel Stark and AFNI, Inc.
What happened
Stark v. AFNI, Inc. concerns AFNI’s motion asking the court to rule on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), before trial. The court did not decide that motion in this order.
The court ordered Stark to notify it by April 4, 2022, whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on her existing complaint and oppose AFNI’s motion. If she chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court.
Judge Briccetti also gave AFNI 21 days after any amendment to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on its original motion. The order set no final ruling on the motion and warned that further amendment might not be allowed later.
The detailed version
- Stark v. AFNI, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-08868
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 28, 2022
Background
On March 24, 2022, AFNI filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). A Rule 12(c) motion asks the court to decide a case based on the pleadings filed by the parties, such as the complaint and answer.
Order
The court ordered Stark to notify the court by April 4, 2022, whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or instead rely on her existing complaint and file an opposition to AFNI’s motion.
If Stark chose not to amend, the motion would proceed under the ordinary briefing schedule established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules. The court stated that it was unlikely to give Stark another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies revealed by the fully briefed motion.
If Stark chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, AFNI could answer the amended complaint, file a motion to dismiss it, or notify the court that it would rely on its original motion.
Disposition and significance
The court did not grant or deny AFNI’s Rule 12(c) motion and did not decide the adequacy or merits of Stark’s claims. It issued a scheduling and pleading-related order requiring Stark to select how to proceed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.