Manning v. City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-02352
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Manning v. City of New York, Judge Schofield denied defendants’ limitations motion without prejudice while requiring briefing on subject-matter jurisdiction.
James Manning and the defendants, including the City of New York, were affected. The defendants’ statute-of-limitations motion was denied without prejudice, and Manning was given an opportunity to address subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Manning v. City of New York, the defendants asked the court to dismiss James Manning’s claims as too late under the statute of limitations.
The court denied that motion without prejudice to renewal because it first had to determine whether it had authority to hear the case. The court gave Manning until January 5, 2024, to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also ordered the defendants to serve Manning with the order and closed the pending motion on the court’s docket.
The detailed version
- Manning v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-02352
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 6, 2023
Background
On June 23, 2023, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss, arguing that James Manning’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The motion was fully briefed on July 26, 2023.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that it first had to determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. Courts have an independent duty to ensure that this authority exists. The defendants had described their arguments for dismissal based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in earlier pre-motion letters.
Ruling and Case Status
The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations without prejudice to renewal. The opinion did not decide whether the claims were timely. Manning was permitted to submit a letter brief by January 5, 2024, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also ordered the defendants to serve the order on Manning by December 12, 2023, file proof of service, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 50.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.