Garrison v. American Sugar Refining, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-10917
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Garrison v. American Sugar Refining, Inc., Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiff to choose whether to amend his complaint before the dismissal motion proceeds.
Davall Garrison and the defendants—American Sugar Refining, Inc., American Sugar Holdings, Inc., ASR Group International, Inc., Tappan Dutta, and Dennis Angone—were affected by the deadlines and filing options in the order.
What happened
Garrison v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. concerns defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows a defendant to argue that a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The order did not decide that motion.
The court required Davall Garrison to notify the court by April 28, 2022, whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on his existing complaint. If he chooses to amend, he must file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. If he does not amend, the dismissal motion will proceed under the usual schedule.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also stated that defendants may answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on their existing motion within 21 days after an amendment. The order was procedural and did not resolve the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Garrison v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-10917
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 19, 2022
Background
The plaintiff, Davall Garrison, sued American Sugar Refining, Inc., American Sugar Holdings, Inc., ASR Group International, Inc., Tappan Dutta, and Dennis Angone. On April 18, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The opinion does not describe the claims or the alleged deficiencies in the complaint.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Garrison to notify it by April 28, 2022, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already under review.
If Garrison 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 based on deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion arguments.
If Garrison chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court of that choice. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendants could file an answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they were relying on the initial motion to dismiss. The order also stated that the deadlines for opposition and reply papers would be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules unless the court ordered otherwise.
Disposition and Significance
The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. It directed the plaintiff to choose between amending the complaint and proceeding on the existing complaint, so the order did not decide the merits of the claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.