Patora v. Vi-Jon, LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-06678
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Patora v. Vi-Jon, Judge Briccetti gave each plaintiff a choice to amend her complaint or proceed against Vi-Jon’s dismissal motion.
Jeannie Patora, Nancy Kane, Vi-Jon LLC, and the proposed classes described in the complaints were affected by the order’s amendment and dismissal-motion deadlines.
What happened
Patora v. Vi-Jon, LLC involves related proposed class actions by Jeannie Patora and Nancy Kane against Vi-Jon LLC. Vi-Jon filed motions asking the court to dismiss each complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
The court ordered each plaintiff to notify it by September 26, 2022, whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If a plaintiff chose to amend, she had 14 days after notifying the court to file the amended complaint.
The order did not decide the dismissal motions. It set the next steps and stated that, after an amended complaint, Vi-Jon could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on its original motion. Judge Vincent Briccetti issued the order on September 15, 2022.
The detailed version
- Patora v. Vi-Jon, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-06678
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 15, 2022
Background
The opinion concerns two related actions. Jeannie Patora brought one action individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. Nancy Kane brought the other action on the same stated basis. Vi-Jon LLC was the defendant in both cases.
On September 14, 2022, Vi-Jon filed a motion to dismiss each complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule allows a defendant to argue that the complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
Court’s Order
The court ordered each plaintiff to send a letter by September 26, 2022, stating whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss or would rely on the complaint already filed.
If either plaintiff chose not to amend, the court said the motion to dismiss would proceed in the ordinary course. The court also stated that it was unlikely to give that plaintiff another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed dismissal arguments. The court cited appellate decisions discussing circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If either plaintiff chose to amend, she was required to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court of that choice. Within 21 days after an amended complaint was filed, Vi-Jon could answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that it would rely on its initially filed motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny either motion to dismiss. It directed the plaintiffs to choose whether to amend and established deadlines for the next filings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.