Mausner v. Mausner
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-01453
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Mausner v. Mausner, Judge Furman dismissed claims against David Allinson but allowed amendment and ordered service on Irena K. Mausner and Nicole Allinson.
Ian O. Mausner may file an amended complaint within 30 days concerning the claims against David Allinson. David Allinson was terminated as a defendant. Irena K. Mausner and Nicole Allinson must be served within 90 days after summonses are issued, unless Mausner requests an extension.
What happened
In Mausner v. Mausner, Ian O. Mausner, who was representing himself, sued Irena K. Mausner and others and asserted federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the claims’ factual basis.
The court found that the complaint named David Allinson as a defendant but contained no allegations explaining how he violated the law or injured Mausner. The court dismissed the claims against David Allinson and allowed Mausner 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing those claims. The court also directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Irena K. Mausner and Nicole Allinson.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered Mausner to serve Irena K. Mausner and Nicole Allinson within 90 days after the summonses were issued, or request more time. The order warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, and directed the Clerk to terminate David Allinson as a defendant.
The detailed version
- Mausner v. Mausner · No. 1:24-cv-01453
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 7, 2024
Background
Ian O. Mausner filed the action while representing himself and paid the filing fees. He asserted that the court had federal-question jurisdiction and diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or describe the events giving rise to them.
Claims Against David Allinson
David Allinson appeared as a defendant in the complaint’s caption, but the body of the complaint contained no allegations against him. The court explained that a complaint must include facts showing why a named defendant is legally responsible for the alleged harm. Applying the rule requiring dismissal for failure to state a claim when the complaint does not provide a legally sufficient basis for relief, the court dismissed Mausner’s claims against David Allinson.
The court granted Mausner 30 days’ leave to replead those claims in an amended complaint. “Leave to replead” means permission to file an amended complaint, but the opinion does not characterize the dismissal using a with-prejudice or without-prejudice label.
Service on Irena K. Mausner and Nicole Allinson
The Clerk of Court was directed to issue summonses for Irena K. Mausner and Nicole Allinson. Mausner was directed to serve each of them with a summons and a copy of the complaint within 90 days after the summonses were issued. If he did not serve them or request an extension within that period, the court stated that it could dismiss the claims against them under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.
The court explained that the usual 90-day service period was extended because the summonses were not issued when the complaint was filed and were issued later after Mausner paid the required fees.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the claims against David Allinson for failure to state a claim, granted Mausner 30 days’ leave to replead those claims, and directed the Clerk to terminate David Allinson as a defendant. The court directed issuance of summonses for Irena K. Mausner and Nicole Allinson and set the service requirements described above. The opinion does not resolve the underlying dispute or decide the merits of any claim.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.