Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 9, 2022

Conde v. Mid Hudson Regional Hospital Medical Center

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-03085
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Conde v. Mid Hudson, Judge Briccetti extended Usha Conde’s deadline to decide whether to amend her complaint.

Who this affects

Usha Conde and the defendants, Mid Hudson Regional Hospital Medical Center and Jordy Rabinowitz, because the order set deadlines for amending the complaint and responding to the pending motion to dismiss.

What happened

In Conde v. Mid Hudson Regional Hospital Medical Center, defendants had filed a motion to dismiss, and the court had ordered Usha Conde to say whether she would amend her complaint or rely on the existing one. Conde, who was representing herself, asked for until January 4, 2023 to make that decision.

The court said she did not need two additional months, but it gave her 30 more days because she was representing herself. She had to notify the court by December 5, 2022, whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on the complaint already challenged by the motion to dismiss.

If Conde chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. The defendants then had 21 days to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they relied on their original motion. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Conde v. Mid Hudson Regional Hospital Medical Center · No. 7:22-cv-03085
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Nov. 9, 2022

Background

The court had previously ordered Usha Conde to notify it by November 4, 2022, whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss or would rely on her existing complaint. On November 4, Conde asked for an extension until January 4, 2023. The opinion states that Conde was representing herself.

Order

The court stated that Conde did not need an additional two months merely to decide whether to amend her complaint in response to the fully briefed motion. Because of her self-represented status, however, the court extended the deadline by an additional 30 days. It ordered Conde to notify the court by December 5, 2022, whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on the complaint challenged by the motion to dismiss.

If Conde chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the ordinary schedule, and the court stated that it was unlikely to give her another opportunity to amend based on the deficiencies identified in the motion. If she chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after that filing, the defendants could answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they were relying on their original motion to dismiss.

Disposition and Effect

This order set deadlines and procedures concerning a possible amended complaint. It did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the merits of Conde’s claims. Chambers was directed to mail a copy of the order to Conde at the address listed on the docket. The docket number in the supplied opinion text is not fully legible.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.