Sander v. Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacturers
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-10684
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Sander v. Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacture, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiff to choose between amending and opposing a dismissal motion.
Sander and Enerco Group Inc., which was sued under the name “Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacture.” The order set Sander’s amendment or opposition deadlines and described Enerco’s options after any amended complaint.
What happened
In Sander v. Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacture, Enerco Group Inc. moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The opinion does not describe the claims or the alleged events.
The court ordered Sander to notify it by June 24, 2022, whether she would file a third amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint and oppose the motion. If she opposed the motion, her response was due July 8 and the defendant’s reply was due July 15. If she amended, the third amended complaint was due July 15.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order. He stated that the motion would proceed if Sander did not amend and that the defendant could answer, file another dismissal motion, or rely on its initial motion after any amendment.
The detailed version
- Sander v. Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacturers · No. 7:21-cv-10684
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 10, 2022
Background
The caption names the defendant as “Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacture.” The order states that Enerco Group Inc. was incorrectly sued under that name. On June 9, 2022, Enerco moved to dismiss Sander’s second amended complaint. The opinion does not explain the claims, the alleged facts, or the grounds for dismissal.
Order
The court ordered Sander to notify it by letter no later than June 24, 2022, whether she intended to file a third amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint challenged by the motion.
If Sander chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed in the ordinary course. The court stated that it was very unlikely to give her another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion. In that event, Sander’s opposition was due July 8, 2022, and Enerco’s reply, if any, was due July 15, 2022.
If Sander chose to amend, she had to file a third amended complaint by July 15, 2022. Within 21 days after any amended complaint was filed, Enerco could file an answer, file a motion to dismiss, or notify the court by letter that it would rely on its initially filed motion.
Disposition
The court issued a scheduling and amendment order; it did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the case. Chambers was directed to mail a copy of the order to Sander at the address on the docket.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.