Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 19, 2022

Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee v. Dragon…

Full caption

Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee, Inc. v. Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc.

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-00513
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Mid-New York Environmental v. Dragon Springs Buddhist: Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiffs to choose whether to amend after defendant moved to dismiss.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs—Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee, Inc., doing business as NYENVIRONCOM, Robert Majcher, Grace Woodard, and Alex Scilla—and the defendant, Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc.

What happened

In Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee, Inc. v. Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc., the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on April 15, 2022.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to notify it by April 25 whether they would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If they chose to amend, they had 14 days after giving notice to file the amended complaint.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order. If the plaintiffs amended, the defendant could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on its original motion within 21 days after the amendment.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee v. Dragon… · No. 7:22-cv-00513
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 19, 2022

Background

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on April 15, 2022. The order does not decide whether the complaint should be dismissed.

Order

The court required the plaintiffs to notify the court by April 25, 2022, whether they intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already filed. If the plaintiffs chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the ordinary schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies raised by the fully briefed motion.

If the plaintiffs chose to amend, they had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court of that choice. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendant could answer the amended complaint, file a motion to dismiss it, or notify the court that it would rely on the original motion to dismiss. The order states that briefing deadlines would otherwise be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local civil rules.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered a case-management order requiring the plaintiffs to choose between amending the complaint and proceeding on the existing complaint. The order did not grant or deny the pending motion to dismiss and did not resolve the claims’ merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.