Wallace v. New York Police Department
- Willis
- 1:22-cv-03414
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wallace v. City of New York, Judge Willis paused most deadlines while the parties addressed a pending motion and amended complaint.
Timmy Wallace, his attorney Mr. Dratch, and the defendants were affected by the representation directive and revised briefing schedule. The court did not resolve the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in this order.
What happened
In Wallace v. City of New York, defendants had filed a motion challenging the pleadings, and Timmy Wallace sought permission to file a third amended complaint. Wallace’s attorney also said he planned to withdraw, but no formal withdrawal motion appeared on the docket.
The court treated Wallace’s July 6 filing as his opposition to the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court will consider that motion using the facts alleged in the submitted Third Amended Complaint. It did not decide the motion in this order.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis ordered the attorney to clarify by July 20 whether he still represented Wallace or to file a formal withdrawal motion. Defendants’ reply remained due July 24, while all other deadlines were postponed without a new date until the motion is resolved.
The detailed version
- Wallace v. New York Police Department · No. 1:22-cv-03414
- Willis
- July 12, 2023
Background
In early April 2023, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Wallace’s opposition originally was due May 15, 2023. In mid-May, Wallace’s attorney, Mr. Dratch, said he intended to withdraw and asked for more time so Wallace could prepare his opposition himself. The opinion states that no formal motion to withdraw appeared to have been filed.
On June 20, Wallace sought permission to file a third amended complaint. On July 6, he filed a document titled “Notice of Motion in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(c),” which the court construed as his opposition to the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that opposition timely. Wallace also filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a supporting affidavit.
Court’s Action
The court decided that the pending Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings would be evaluated using the facts alleged in the submitted Third Amended Complaint. The court relied on authority allowing a court either to treat a pending motion to dismiss as moot after an amended complaint or to decide the motion using the amended pleading. This order did not decide whether the motion should be granted or denied, and it did not clearly state that leave to amend was granted.
The court kept the defendants’ July 24, 2023 deadline for filing a reply. It adjourned all other case deadlines without a date until the motion for judgment on the pleadings was resolved. If the case was not dismissed after that resolution, the parties would later be directed to confer and agree on a discovery plan.
Representation Issue
By July 20, 2023, Mr. Dratch was ordered to file a letter clarifying whether he continued to represent Wallace or to file a formal motion to withdraw. The order was entered by Jennifer E. Willis, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.