Foli v. Metro-North Railroad

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 16, 2025
• Docket: 7:23-cv-05982
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

420 Lexington Avenue Catherine A. Rinaldi New York, NY 10170 President www.mta.info iD Metro-North Railroad The Court DENIES pro se Pltfs request for a pre-motic conference to file a motion to stay the proceeding (ECF N January 16, 2025 101). The Court is in receipt of Defts' motion to dismiss (EC No. 85) and Defts' time to serve an answer or otherwise respor Via ECF to the First Amended Complaint is tolled until a time after tl disposition of that motion. The Court will inform Defts of tl Hon. Nelson S. Roman deadline to answer or otherwise respond, if warranted, wh United States District Court, it issues its decision on the pending motion to dismiss. TI] Southern District of New York Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail a copy of th 300 Quarropas Street endorsement to pro se Pltf at the address listed on EC White Plains, New York 10601 and show service on the docket. RE: _ Teko Foli v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad 50 EEE File No.: 23-CV-05982 (NSR) i J Syn □□ Dated: Jan. 16, 2025. ——=——__— : . NELSON S$, ROMAN Q Dear Honorable Judge Roman: White Plains, NY United States District Judge This office represents the interests of the Defendants Metro-North Railroad and Metro-North MTA Police. Please accept this opposition letter in response to Plaintiff's January 10, 2025 letter requesting a pre-motion conference to file a motion to stay the proceeding. ECF 101. Defendants filed a timely motion to dismiss to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. As such, Defendants do not have to file an answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. FRCP 12 (a)(4) (A). Finnegan v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 180 F.R.D. 247, 250 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) © (holding that the plain language of Rule 12(a)(4) contemplates suspending the time to response > to the entire complaint, not just to claims that are the subject of a partial motion to dismiss) = Here, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint challenged all claims. Defendants’ time to serve an answer is tolled until such time after this Court issues its decision on their motion to dismiss. This office assumes that this Court’s Order will set a definitive time for the Defendants to serve an answer, if this Court denies the Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff's proposed motion is without merit and without a legal basis; thereby eliminating the need for a pre-motion conference. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT Respectfully yours, ELECTRONICALLY FILED Ob. VUvareke DOC # Alan Muraidekh DATE FILED: 1/16/2025 Associate Counsel (212) 340-2203 ce: Teko Foli (Via ECF)