Lee v. New Rochelle City School District
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-10973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Lee v. New Rochelle City School District, Judge Briccetti ordered Lee to choose whether to amend the complaint before the dismissal motion proceeds.
Jareca Lee, on behalf of J.L., and The City School District of the City of New Rochelle; the order set deadlines and next steps for the pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Lee v. New Rochelle City School District, the defendant had moved to dismiss the complaint on April 1, 2022. The order does not describe the claims or the reasons for that motion.
The court ordered plaintiff Jareca Lee, on behalf of J.L., to notify the court by April 15 whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If she chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after giving notice. If she did not amend, her opposition was due May 16 and the defendant’s reply was due May 30.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the motion to dismiss. He warned that the court was unlikely to allow another amendment to address deficiencies made clear by the motion’s briefing and directed that the order and a motions guide be mailed to plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Lee v. New Rochelle City School District · No. 7:21-cv-10973
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 4, 2022
Background
On April 1, 2022, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The order does not identify the claims, state the grounds for dismissal, or decide whether the complaint is legally sufficient.
Court’s Order
The court ordered plaintiff to notify it by letter no later than April 15 whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already filed.
If plaintiff chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the schedule set by the court: plaintiff’s opposition would be due May 16, 2022, and defendant’s reply would be due May 30, 2022. The court stated that it was unlikely to grant plaintiff another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies revealed by the fully briefed motion.
If plaintiff chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, defendant could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or notify the court that it would rely on the initial motion to dismiss.
The court also directed its chambers to mail plaintiff a copy of the order and a guide explaining basic motion procedures for litigants without lawyers.
Disposition
This order did not grant or deny the pending motion to dismiss. It set a procedure and deadlines for deciding whether plaintiff would amend the complaint and for continuing the motion practice. The order was signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.