Hunt v. Alamo
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-09151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hunt v. Alamo, Judge Engelmayer gave William Hunt until February 5, 2024, to oppose defendants’ dismissal motion before treating it as unopposed.
William Hunt and the defendants, including Michael J. Alamo, in the pending federal case.
What happened
In Hunt v. Alamo, defendants asked the court to dismiss William Hunt’s complaint under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court had given Hunt the choice of amending his complaint or opposing the dismissal motion, but the order says he did neither and did not request another extension. The court set February 5, 2024, as the deadline for Hunt to file an opposition.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered that, if Hunt did not file an opposition by that date, the court would treat the dismissal motion as unopposed. The order did not grant or deny the dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Hunt v. Alamo · No. 1:23-cv-09151
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 31, 2024
Background
On November 13, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss William Hunt’s complaint under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 12 motion asks the court to dismiss a complaint based on specified procedural or pleading grounds.
On November 14, 2023, the court directed Hunt either to amend his complaint or to oppose the motion to dismiss. The order states that the initial deadline was September 8, 2023, and that the deadline was later extended to January 8, 2024. As of January 31, 2024, Hunt had not amended his complaint, opposed the motion, or sought another extension. The deadline to amend had passed.
Order
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered that Hunt had until February 5, 2024, to file an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. If Hunt did not do so, the court would treat the motion as unopposed. The order did not rule on, grant, or deny the motion to dismiss.
Effect
The order set a deadline concerning the defendants’ pending motion and warned of the consequence of failing to respond. Based on the opinion text, the motion’s ultimate disposition is not stated.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.