Atas v. The New York Times Company
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00853
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Atas v. The New York Times Company, Judge Swain granted Nadire Atas 45 more days to amend her complaint.
Nadire Atas, who was representing herself, received another deadline to file an amended complaint; the defendants were not the subject of a merits ruling in this order.
What happened
In Atas v. The New York Times Company, Nadire Atas was representing herself. The court had dismissed her complaint but allowed her 30 days to file an amended complaint that the court could hear.
The court had already granted two requests for more time. Atas asked for another extension to file her amended complaint.
The court granted the request and gave Atas 45 days from the order’s date to file the amended complaint. Judge Laura Taylor Swain warned that the case would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Atas did not comply and could not show a good reason for the delay. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Atas v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:22-cv-00853
- James Oetken
- Aug. 17, 2022
Background
Nadire Atas brought the action without a lawyer. In an order dated May 31, 2022, the court dismissed her complaint but gave her 30 days to file an amended complaint over which the court would have subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. The court later granted two requests for extensions of time. On August 16, 2022, Atas requested a third extension.
Ruling
The court granted Atas’s request for another extension. It directed her to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the August 17, 2022 order. The court stated that if she did not comply within that period and could not show good cause for the failure, the action would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that no further extensions would be granted.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.