Jones v. City of New York

Background

The court had scheduled a conference concerning defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s counsel, Conway Martindale, did not appear, even after court staff sent him a reminder email. Martindale responded that he had been out of the office and had not placed the conference on his calendar.

The court described several earlier failures by Martindale. These included failing to respond to an order concerning service of the summons and complaint, missing deadlines to amend the complaint or oppose the dismissal motion, and filing a short and conclusory opposition that did not address defendants’ argument that nearly all of the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court had previously dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to respond to the service-related order, but later vacated that dismissal as to the City and one individual defendant who had been served.

Rulings

The court ordered Martindale to show cause in writing by July 27, 2023, why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to appear at the conference and repeatedly failing to comply with court orders. It also required him to serve the order on his client by July 24, 2023, and file proof of service. The court warned that failing to do so could result in additional sanctions.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. For claims other than the malicious-prosecution claim, the court relied in part on abandonment, explaining that failing to oppose an argument in a dismissal motion is treated as conceding that argument and abandoning the affected claims. The court also granted the motion substantially for the reasons stated in defendants’ memorandum. The order does not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice.

The court reserved judgment on whether to grant leave to amend the malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Lin. It identified alleged pleading deficiencies concerning whether Officer Lin personally participated in starting the criminal proceeding and whether he acted with actual malice. If Jones wished to amend, he had to file a supplemental memorandum, a proposed amended complaint, and a redline by July 31, 2023. The court stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in denial of leave to amend without further notice and warned that no deadline extensions would be granted. The Clerk was directed to terminate the dismissal motion from the docket.

Classification basis

This is a procedural order because the court ruled on a motion to dismiss, including based on abandonment and the arguments presented in that motion, rather than deciding the underlying legal claims on their merits.