Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L.

S.D. New York

Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L.

DecidedFebruary 2, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-11101

StatusUnknown

This text of Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L. (Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK aamd DATE FILED: 2 / )( )? | Patricia Raad, et al, Plaintiffs, 20-cv-11101 (AJN) _y— ORDER Bank Audi S.A.L., Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On January 29, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 14. Pursuant to Rule 3.F of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, on or before February 11, 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 (2) they will rely on the pleading being attacked. Plaintiffs are on notice that declining to amend their pleadings to timely respond to a fully briefed argument in the Defendant’s January 29, 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 Defendant’s 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, Defendant may then (a) file an answer; (b) file a new motion to dismiss; or (c) submit a letter stating that it will 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: February 2, 2021 . New York, New York Ain 0 | ti 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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK aamd DATE FILED: 2 / )( )? | Patricia Raad, et al, Plaintiffs, 20-cv-11101 (AJN) _y— ORDER Bank Audi S.A.L., Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On January 29, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 14. Pursuant to Rule 3.F of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, on or before February 11, 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 (2) they will rely on the pleading being attacked. Plaintiffs are on notice that declining to amend their pleadings to timely respond to a fully briefed argument in the Defendant’s January 29, 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 Defendant’s 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, Defendant may then (a) file an answer; (b) file a new motion to dismiss; or (c) submit a letter stating that it will 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: February 2, 2021 . New York, New York Ain 0 | ti ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raad-v-bank-audi-sal-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack