Hooks v. The City of New York

What the order addressed

This was a case-management order in an action referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management. The court observed that the defendants did not have one uniform deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint.

Stephen Edwards had filed an answer and counterclaim. The counterclaim sought $100,000 from plaintiff Wesley Alexander Hooks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court explained that Rule 11 allows a court to impose sanctions for certain improper filings but does not create an independent cause of action for damages. It also explained that a Rule 11 sanctions request must be made separately, identify the specific challenged conduct, and follow the rule’s service and correction procedure.

The court stated that Edwards did not appear to have followed those requirements. It ordered Edwards, by April 15, 2022, either to move to dismiss the counterclaim voluntarily under Rule 41 or to show cause in writing why the counterclaim should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Other deadlines and motions

Ralph Garcia, the City of New York, Jamie Niskanen-Singer, and Adam Neal had received extensions to respond to the amended complaint until April 15, 2022. The remaining defendants did not appear to have been served, or, for Kenmore and Associates, LCC, did not appear to have been effectively served.

The City had moved to stay, or pause, the action while plaintiff’s underlying criminal proceedings continued. The court had previously given Hooks until April 15, 2022, to respond. The court allowed any defendant other than the City to respond to that motion by submitting a letter brief of no more than four pages by the same date.

Niskanen-Singer, who had been served, and The Legal Aid Society, which had not been served, had sought permission to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court stated that no pre-motion conference was required before a defendant could file a motion to dismiss under the applicable individual practices.

Disposition

To conserve resources and promote efficiency, the court extended the deadline for served defendants other than Edwards to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint until May 15, 2022. The order set procedures and deadlines for the pending matters; it did not rule on the merits of the amended complaint or decide the City’s motion to stay. The order also did not itself dismiss Edwards’s counterclaim; it required Edwards either to seek voluntary dismissal or to explain why dismissal should not occur.