Slaten v. Slaten
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-09488
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Slaten v. Slaten, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiffs to choose whether to amend their complaint before defendants’ dismissal motion proceeds.
Sybil Slaten and Warren Slaten had to choose whether to amend their complaint; Whitney J. Slaten and Martha Slaten received options for responding if an amended complaint was filed.
What happened
In Slaten v. Slaten, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on January 30, 2023.
The court ordered plaintiffs Sybil Slaten and Warren Slaten to notify the court by February 9 whether they would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If they rely on the existing complaint, the dismissal motion will proceed under the usual schedule.
Judge Briccetti stated that, if plaintiffs amend, defendants may answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on their existing motion. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Slaten v. Slaten · No. 7:22-cv-09488
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 31, 2023
Background
On January 30, 2023, Whitney J. Slaten and Martha Slaten moved to dismiss the complaint filed by Sybil Slaten and Warren Slaten.
Order
The court ordered Sybil Slaten and Warren Slaten to notify the court by February 9, 2023, whether they intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss or would rely on the existing complaint.
If the plaintiffs chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed in the regular course. The court stated that it was unlikely to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies identified by the fully briefed motion.
If the plaintiffs chose to amend, they were required to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court of their intent. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendants could answer the amended complaint, move to dismiss it, or notify the court that they would rely on the initially filed motion to dismiss. The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss or decide the underlying claims. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.