E.G. v. City of New York

S.D. New York

E.G. v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 25, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-09879·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: LT 25) 2021

E.G., et al., Plaintiffs, 20-cv-9879 (AJN) —V— ORDER City of New York, et al., Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On January 24, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 61. Pursuant to Rule 3.F of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, on or before February 8, 2021, Plaintiffs must notify the Court and their adversaries in writing whether (1) they intend to file an amended pleading and when they will do so or whether (2) they will rely on the pleading being attacked. Plaintiffs are on notice that declining to amend her pleadings to timely respond to a fully briefed argument in the Defendants’ January 24, 2021 motion to dismiss may well constitute a waiver of the Plaintiffs’ right to use the amendment process to cure any defects that have been made apparent by the Defendants’ briefing. See Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC., 797 F.3d 160, 190 (2d Cir. 2015) (leaving “unaltered the grounds on which denial of leave to amend has long been held proper, such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility”). If Plaintiffs choose to amend, Defendants may then (a) file an answer; (b) file a new motion to dismiss; or (c) submit a letter stating that they rely on the initially-filed motion to dismiss. Nothing in this Order alters the time to amend, answer or move provided by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules.

SO ORDERED. Dated: January 25, 2021 Ni | tis New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: LT 25) 2021

E.G., et al., Plaintiffs, 20-cv-9879 (AJN) —V— ORDER City of New York, et al., Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On January 24, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 61. Pursuant to Rule 3.F of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, on or before February 8, 2021, Plaintiffs must notify the Court and their adversaries in writing whether (1) they intend to file an amended pleading and when they will do so or whether (2) they will rely on the pleading being attacked. Plaintiffs are on notice that declining to amend her pleadings to timely respond to a fully briefed argument in the Defendants’ January 24, 2021 motion to dismiss may well constitute a waiver of the Plaintiffs’ right to use the amendment process to cure any defects that have been made apparent by the Defendants’ briefing. See Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC., 797 F.3d 160, 190 (2d Cir. 2015) (leaving “unaltered the grounds on which denial of leave to amend has long been held proper, such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility”). If Plaintiffs choose to amend, Defendants may then (a) file an answer; (b) file a new motion to dismiss; or (c) submit a letter stating that they rely on the initially-filed motion to dismiss. Nothing in this Order alters the time to amend, answer or move provided by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules.

SO ORDERED. Dated: January 25, 2021 Ni | tis New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

E.G. v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

E.G. v. City of New York (E.G. v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related