Thomas v. Arteta
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:23-cv-02981
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Thomas v. Arteta, Judge Briccetti required Thomas to choose whether to amend her complaint before the dismissal motion proceeds.
Sheryl J. Thomas, Paul Arteta, and the County of Orange.
What happened
In Thomas v. Arteta, Paul Arteta and the County of Orange had moved to dismiss Sheryl J. Thomas’s complaint.
The court ordered Thomas to notify it by June 19, 2023, whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing one. The court did not decide the dismissal motion.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti stated that, if Thomas amended, she had 14 days after notifying the court to do so, and defendants then had 21 days to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on their original motion.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Arteta · No. 7:23-cv-02981
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 12, 2023
Background
On June 9, 2023, defendants Paul Arteta and the County of Orange moved to dismiss the complaint.
Order
The court ordered Sheryl J. Thomas to notify the court by June 19, 2023, whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the existing complaint.
If Thomas chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the regular schedule. The court also stated that it was unlikely to give her another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion.
If Thomas chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court of her intent. Within 21 days after the amendment, defendants could answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they were relying on their initial motion to dismiss. The court did not rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.