Segal v. New York Military Academy
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-06872
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Segal v. New York Military Academy, Judge Briccetti let Gilbert Segal amend, denied defendants’ dismissal motion without prejudice, and extended service time.
Gilbert Segal Jr.; the New York Military Academy and Research Center on Natural Conservation Inc.; and the defendants who had not yet been served.
What happened
In Segal v. New York Military Academy, self-represented plaintiff Gilbert Segal Jr. opposed the New York Military Academy defendants’ request to dismiss his second amended complaint and asked to amend it again. He also asked for more time to serve several defendants who had not yet been served.
The court granted Segal permission to file a third amended complaint because he sought to add facts relevant to his claims. It denied the New York Military Academy defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and extended Segal’s deadline to serve the unserved defendants until 60 days after he files the third amended complaint.
Judge Vincent Briccetti ordered Segal to file the third amended complaint by July 7, 2022. The New York Military Academy defendants then had 21 days to answer or move to dismiss the new complaint.
The detailed version
- Segal v. New York Military Academy · No. 7:21-cv-06872
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 7, 2022
Background
Gilbert Segal Jr., who was representing himself, had filed a second amended complaint against several defendants. The defendants New York Military Academy and Research Center on Natural Conservation Inc. (the “NYMA Defendants”) moved to dismiss that complaint. Segal opposed the motion and asked for permission to file another amended complaint. He also asked for additional time to serve the Association of Military Colleges and Schools of the United States, JROTC Army, the National Association of Independent Schools, the New York Department of Education, Sun Fin Holdings, and Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.
Rulings
The court granted Segal’s motion for leave to amend. It explained that courts generally should give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to correct defects in a complaint unless amendment would be futile, and found that Segal sought to add facts relevant to his claims.
The NYMA Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was denied without prejudice. Segal was ordered to file the third amended complaint by July 7, 2022. Within 21 days after that filing, the NYMA Defendants could either answer the third amended complaint or move to dismiss it.
The court also granted Segal’s request for more time to serve the unserved defendants. His service deadline was extended until 60 days after he filed the third amended complaint. The Clerk was directed to terminate the three motions. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.