Broden v. Rubinstein, M.D., M.P.H..
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-10411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Broden v. Rubinstein, Judge Briccetti ordered Broden to choose whether to file a second amended complaint responding to Rubinstein’s dismissal motion.
Ronald Broden and Boris Rubinstein, the parties to the case; the order specifically required Broden to choose whether to file a second amended complaint and set options for Rubinstein if he did so.
What happened
In Broden v. Rubinstein, Boris Rubinstein moved to dismiss Ronald Broden’s amended complaint on May 27, 2022.
The court required Broden to notify it by June 10 whether he would file a second amended complaint or rely on the existing amended complaint. If he chose to amend, he had 14 days after notifying the court to file the second amended complaint.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the dismissal motion. The order explained that, if Broden relied on the existing complaint, the motion would proceed under the usual schedule and the court was unlikely to allow another amendment to address deficiencies identified in the fully briefed motion.
The detailed version
- Broden v. Rubinstein, M.D., M.P.H.. · No. 7:21-cv-10411
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 3, 2022
Background
On May 27, 2022, Boris Rubinstein moved to dismiss Ronald Broden’s amended complaint.
Order
The court ordered Broden to notify the court by June 10, 2022, whether he intended to file a second amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the amended complaint already subject to the motion. If Broden chose to file a second amended complaint, the order required him to do so no later than 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after that amendment, Rubinstein could answer, move to dismiss the second amended complaint, or notify the court that he would rely on the original motion to dismiss.
If Broden chose not to amend, the dismissal motion would proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules, unless the court ordered otherwise. The court stated that it was unlikely to grant Broden another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the amended complaint. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.