Dodd v. My Sisters' Place, Inc.

Background

The opinion states that defendants Robert R. Gheewalla, Suzanna Seiden, Barbara Raho, Evan J. Cohen, Cheryl Greenberg, Peter Cutaia, Maria Faustino, Dania Jones-Brown, and Christina Debonis filed a motion to dismiss Marcus Andre Dodd's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule permits a defendant to argue that a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim.

Court's Order

The court ordered Dodd to notify it by April 14, 2022, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already challenged by the motion.

If Dodd chose not to amend, the motion would proceed under the regular schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to give Dodd another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies identified by the fully briefed motion, citing limits on amendment such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.

If Dodd chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after that amendment, the moving defendants could answer the amended complaint, file a motion to dismiss it, or notify the court that they would rely on their initial motion.

Disposition and Significance

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued a scheduling and amendment order; the opinion does not state that the motion to dismiss was granted or denied. The order therefore addressed the next steps for the complaint rather than deciding whether Dodd's claims were legally sufficient.