Tripathy v. Feuz
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-05349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tripathy v. Feuz, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiff to choose between amending his complaint and proceeding against defendants’ dismissal motion; he did not decide the motion.
Sanjay Tripathy and the defendants named in the complaint, including Feuz.
What happened
In Tripathy v. Feuz, defendants moved to dismiss Sanjay Tripathy’s complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The opinion does not describe the complaint’s claims or the arguments for dismissal.
The court ordered Tripathy to notify the court by April 18, 2022, whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If he chose not to amend, the dismissal motion would proceed under the regular schedule. If he chose to amend, he had 14 days after notifying the court to file the amended complaint.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued this order on April 11, 2022. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss; it set out the plaintiff’s amendment options and the defendants’ responses to any amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Tripathy v. Feuz · No. 7:21-cv-05349
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 11, 2022
Background
On April 8, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns whether the court has authority to hear a case, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The opinion does not explain the claims or the alleged deficiencies in the complaint.
Order
The court ordered Sanjay Tripathy to notify the court by letter no later than April 18, 2022, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already being challenged.
If Tripathy chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the regular schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to give him another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion arguments.
If Tripathy chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court of that choice. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendants could answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they would rely on the original motion to dismiss.
Disposition
This order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. It required Tripathy to choose whether to amend the complaint or proceed with the existing complaint and set deadlines for the possible amended-complaint process.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.