Lurch v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 19, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-11254·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x : ROBERT DEREK LURCH, JR., : Plaintiff, : 19-CV-11254 (VEC) (OTW) : -against- : ORDER : THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., : : Defendants. : : -------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: The City of New York (“City”) is directed to submit supplemental briefing regarding its Motion to Dismiss by December 3, 2020. The briefing shall discuss probable cause, if any, for Plaintiff’s November 25, 2019 arrest. The City may attach exhibits to the supplemental briefing.1 The City shall consult Heller v. Bedford Central School District, 144 F. Supp. 3d 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) regarding false arrest claims relating to New York Mental Hyg. Law § 941. The pro se Plaintiff may, but is not required to, submit a response to the City’s supplemental briefing two weeks after service of the City’s supplemental briefing.

1 In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court is ordinarily limited to consideration of the factual allegations set forth in the plaintiff's complaint. Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007). However, the Court may supplement those allegations with facts from documents either referenced therein or relied upon in framing the complaint, see DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable LLC., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010), or documents upon which the complaint solely relies and which are integral to it, Roth, 489 F.3d at 509. “[A] plaintiff's reliance on the terms and effect of a document in drafting the complaint is a necessary prerequisite to the court's consideration of the documents on a dismissal motion; mere notice or possession is not enough.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir.2002) (emphasis in original). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order on the pro se Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: November 19, 2020 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge

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

Lurch v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

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

Related

Roth v. Jennings
489 F.3d 499 (Second Circuit, 2007)
DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C.
622 F.3d 104 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
282 F.3d 147 (Second Circuit, 2002)
Heller v. Bedford Central School District
144 F. Supp. 3d 596 (S.D. New York, 2015)