Mumin v. The City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-03932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mumin v. City of New York, Judge Rochon allowed amendment, extended service, denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling, and denied a strike motion as moot.
Ayana F. Mumin; the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and Louis A. Molina; and Salesforce.com, Inc. regarding service and future proceedings.
What happened
In Mumin v. The City of New York, the court held an initial pretrial conference and granted Ayana F. Mumin leave to file a second amended complaint by February 15, 2024. The court also extended until March 15, 2024, the deadline to serve Salesforce.com, Inc., or an appropriate agent.
The court denied the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after Mumin files the second amended complaint. It denied Mumin’s motion to strike the City Defendants’ reply brief as moot, and said it would deny that motion anyway because the City Defendants had shown excusable neglect and lack of prejudice.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon directed the City Defendants to file a letter about whether discovery should be stayed within seven days after the second amended complaint is filed, with Mumin allowed seven days to respond. The Clerk was directed to terminate the listed motions.
The detailed version
- Mumin v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-03932
- Rochon
- Jan. 17, 2024
Background
The court held an initial pretrial conference on January 16, 2024. The order addressed amendment of the complaint, service on Salesforce.com, Inc., motions filed by the parties, and possible discovery proceedings.
Rulings
The court granted Plaintiff Ayana F. Mumin leave to file a second amended complaint by February 15, 2024.
The court extended until March 15, 2024, the deadline for Plaintiff to serve Salesforce.com, Inc., or an appropriate agent of that company.
The City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and Louis A. Molina filed a motion to dismiss. The court denied that motion without prejudice to refiling it after Plaintiff files the second amended complaint.
Plaintiff moved to strike the City Defendants’ reply brief. The court denied that motion as moot. The court also stated that, even if the motion were not moot, it would deny it because the City Defendants had sufficiently established excusable neglect and lack of prejudice.
Further Proceedings
Within seven days after Plaintiff files the second amended complaint, the City Defendants must file a letter of no more than three pages addressing whether discovery should be stayed while a motion to dismiss the complaint is resolved. Plaintiff may file a response of no more than three pages within seven days after the City Defendants’ letter.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 27, 37, 38, 39, and 40. This order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.