Kiseleva v. Litman
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-09496
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kiseleva v. Litman, Judge Caproni allowed defendants’ late dismissal motion and extended Kiseleva’s response-or-amendment deadline.
The defendants’ late motion to dismiss will be considered, and Kiseleva received additional time to oppose that motion or amend her complaint.
What happened
In Kiseleva v. Litman, the defendants argued that an earlier deadline extension also extended their deadline to answer or file a motion to dismiss. They relied on what they said were court orders setting a deadline for “all motions.”
The court found that the defendants had misquoted the orders. Those orders extended only Kiseleva’s deadline to seek an order requiring the defendants to explain why default judgment should not be entered. The court nevertheless said it would consider the defendants’ late motion to dismiss because there appeared to be no bad faith or harm to Kiseleva.
Judge Valerie Caproni extended Kiseleva’s deadline to oppose the motion or amend the complaint to April 5, 2024. If Kiseleva responds to the motion, she may not amend the complaint again unless she asks for permission to amend and the court grants that request.
The detailed version
- Kiseleva v. Litman · No. 1:23-cv-09496
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 25, 2024
Background
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss after the applicable deadline. On March 19, 2024, the court ordered them to explain why it should consider the late motion. The defendants responded that they believed their deadline had been extended along with Kiseleva’s deadline to seek an order requiring them to show why default judgment should not be entered.
The defendants claimed that earlier orders referred to a deadline for “all motions.” Judge Caproni found that they had misquoted those orders. The orders referred only to Kiseleva’s deadline to seek an order to show cause concerning default judgment, and the later order extended that deadline to May 16, 2024.
Ruling
The court ordered that it would consider the defendants’ untimely motion to dismiss. It relied on the apparent absence of bad faith by the defendants and prejudice to Kiseleva. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself or the merits of the claims.
The court also extended Kiseleva’s deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss or amend the complaint to April 5, 2024. The court stated that if Kiseleva chose to respond to the motion, she could not amend the complaint again unless she requested permission to amend and the court granted that request.
Court’s Direction
Judge Valerie Caproni directed the defendants to read court orders more carefully and comply with the Federal Rules, Local Rules, and her Individual Practices. She also warned them not to misquote court orders to justify missing deadlines.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.