Smith v. Law Office of Richard St. Paul, Esq., PLLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-05648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Smith v. Law Office of Richard St. Paul, Esq., PLLC, Judge Briccetti ordered Smith to choose whether to amend his complaint before the dismissal motion proceeds.
Byron Smith and the Law Office of Richard St. Paul, Esq., PLLC
What happened
In Smith v. Law Office of Richard St. Paul, Esq., PLLC, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on January 23, 2023.
The court ordered Byron Smith to notify the court by February 2 whether he intended to file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint.
Judge Briccetti did not decide the dismissal motion. He set deadlines for an amended complaint and the defendant’s response, and warned that Smith might not receive another chance to amend if he relied on the existing complaint.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Law Office of Richard St. Paul, Esq., PLLC · No. 7:22-cv-05648
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
The Law Office of Richard St. Paul, Esq., PLLC moved to dismiss Byron Smith’s complaint on January 23, 2023.
Order
The court ordered Smith to notify the court by February 2, 2023, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already subject to the motion.
If Smith chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the regular schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to give Smith another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies identified in the fully briefed motion. If Smith chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. The defendant then had 21 days after the amendment to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that it was relying on the original motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order setting the parties’ next steps and deadlines.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.