Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 14, 2023

Loeffler v. Wong Fleming, P.C.

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:23-cv-01098
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Loeffler v. Wong Fleming, Judge Briccetti ordered Loeffler to choose whether to amend his complaint before defendant’s motion to dismiss proceeds.

Who this affects

The order directly affects plaintiff Yaakov Loeffler, who must choose whether to amend the complaint, and defendant Wong Fleming, P.C., whose motion to dismiss will proceed according to that choice.

What happened

In Loeffler v. Wong Fleming, P.C., the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on March 13, 2023. The order does not describe the complaint’s claims or the reasons for dismissal.

The court required the plaintiff to notify the court by March 23 whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If he chose to amend, he had 14 days after notifying the court to do so.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered that, after an amended complaint, the defendant could answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on its original motion. If the plaintiff did not amend, the original motion would proceed under the ordinary schedule. The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss.

The detailed version

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

Case
Loeffler v. Wong Fleming, P.C. · No. 7:23-cv-01098
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Mar. 14, 2023

Background

The plaintiff, Yaakov Loeffler, brought the action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion states that Wong Fleming, P.C. moved to dismiss the complaint on March 13, 2023, but it does not describe the claims or the arguments supporting the motion.

Order

The court ordered Loeffler to notify the court by March 23, 2023, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss or would rely on the complaint already filed.

If Loeffler chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed in the regular course. The court stated that it was unlikely to give him another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion arguments.

If Loeffler chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court of that choice. Within 21 days after the amendment, Wong Fleming, P.C. could file an answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that it would rely on its original motion. The order also stated that the deadlines for opposition and reply papers would be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules unless the court ordered otherwise.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. The order instead established the plaintiff’s deadline to choose whether to amend and explained how the case would proceed under either choice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.