Pagan v. Alvin and Friends, LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-01589
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pagan v. Alvin and Friends, Judge Briccetti ordered Pagan to choose whether to amend his complaint or proceed against the pending dismissal motion.
Joseph Pagan and the defendants Alvin and Friends, LLC, Alvin Clayton, and Gwen Clayton.
What happened
In Pagan v. Alvin and Friends, LLC, the defendants moved to dismiss Joseph Pagan’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The order did not decide whether that motion should be granted or denied.
Judge Briccetti ordered Pagan to notify the court by August 11, 2022, whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on his existing complaint. If Pagan chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. The defendants would then have 21 days to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on their original motion.
The order states that if Pagan did not amend, the dismissal motion would proceed under the regular schedule and that the court was unlikely to allow another amendment to address deficiencies identified in the fully briefed motion. Judge Briccetti therefore issued a procedural scheduling order without resolving the dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Pagan v. Alvin and Friends, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-01589
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 2, 2022
What happened
On August 1, 2022, Alvin and Friends, LLC, Alvin Clayton, and Gwen Clayton filed a motion to dismiss Joseph Pagan’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the rule governing claims that allegedly do not state a legally sufficient claim.
The court’s order
The court ordered Pagan to notify it by August 11, 2022, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already being challenged.
If Pagan chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed in the regular course. The court stated that it was unlikely to give Pagan another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion.
If Pagan chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. 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 their initial motion to dismiss.
Disposition and effect
The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. It issued an order governing Pagan’s choice between amending the complaint and proceeding on the existing complaint. The order was signed by United States District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.