Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 4, 2023

Matthews v. Gerber Life Insurance Company

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:23-cv-00552
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Matthews v. Gerber Life Insurance Company, Judge Briccetti ordered Matthews to choose whether to amend his complaint before the dismissal motion proceeds.

Who this affects

Thomas Matthews and the proposed class, as well as Gerber Life Insurance Company and John Doe Corporation doing business as Legacy Quote.

What happened

In Matthews v. Gerber Life Insurance Company, Gerber Life Insurance Company moved to dismiss Thomas Matthews’s complaint on April 3, 2023. The complaint was brought individually and for a proposed class.

The court ordered Matthews to notify it by April 13 whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. The court did not decide the dismissal motion in this order.

Judge Briccetti said that if Matthews amended the complaint, he had to do so within 14 days after notifying the court. Gerber Life then would have 21 days to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on its original motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Matthews v. Gerber Life Insurance Company · No. 7:23-cv-00552
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 4, 2023

Background

Thomas Matthews sued Gerber Life Insurance Company and John Doe Corporation, doing business as Legacy Quote, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated persons and entities. Gerber Life moved to dismiss the complaint on April 3, 2023.

Court’s Order

The court ordered Matthews to notify it by April 13, 2023, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss or instead would rely on the complaint already filed. The order warned that, if Matthews chose not to amend, the motion would proceed under the ordinary briefing schedule and the court was unlikely to provide another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies identified in the fully briefed motion.

If Matthews chose to amend, the court required him to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court of that choice. Gerber Life then would have 21 days after the amendment to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that it would rely on its initial motion to dismiss. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the complaint’s legal sufficiency.

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.