Doe 1 v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-10301
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Doe 1 v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands, Judge Subramanian corrected an answer deadline after a defendant filed a dismissal motion.
The order affected the answer and response deadlines for the defendants identified as Governor John de Jongh and Cecile De Jongh, and directed a correction to the case docket.
What happened
In Doe 1 v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands, a defendant had filed a motion asking to dismiss or transfer the case, but the docket set an answer deadline before that motion was decided.
The court said an answer is due after it rules on a pending motion to dismiss. It also said the docket should show Defendant Cecile De Jongh’s response as due March 15, 2024.
Judge Arun Subramanian directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 53 and correct the deadlines on the docket.
The detailed version
- Doe 1 v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands · No. 1:23-cv-10301
- Subramanian
- Feb. 13, 2024
Background
The opinion concerns a defendant identified in the filing as Governor John de Jongh. He had filed a motion to dismiss, transfer, or strike the complaint. The docket then set his answer deadline for March 15, 2024, even though the motion was still pending.
The defendant asked the court to vacate that deadline and delay the time to answer until 14 days after the court decided the pending motion. The filing cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4), which addresses the deadline for responding after certain motions, as well as Rules 6(b) and the court’s authority to manage its calendar.
Court’s ruling
The court agreed that, because the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss, an answer is due after the court rules on that motion. The court stated that the docket should instead have indicated that Defendant Cecile De Jongh’s response to the complaint was due on March 15, 2024.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 53 and correct the deadlines shown on the docket. In the quoted text, the court did not expressly state that it granted the requested 14-day extension; it directed the docket corrections described above. Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order on February 13, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.