Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc.

S.D. New York

Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 27, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-09215·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY - het DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT me *—___ sat SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED; ___-_—_——_

Josue Romero, Plaintiff, 20-cv-9215 (AJN) —V— ORDER 88 Acres Foods, Inc., Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Rule 3.F. of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, on or before February 5, 2021, the Plaintiff must notify the Court and its adversary in writing whether (1) it intends to file an amended pleading and when it will do so or (2) it will rely on the pleading being attacked. The Plaintiff on notice that declining to amend its pleadings to timely respond to a fully briefed argument in the Defendant’s 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 the Plaintiff chooses to amend, the Defendant 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. The initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 5, 2021, is adjourned and all discovery is stayed pending disposition of the 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. AN \ ig Dated: January 27, 2021 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 - het DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT me *—___ sat SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED; ___-_—_——_

Josue Romero, Plaintiff, 20-cv-9215 (AJN) —V— ORDER 88 Acres Foods, Inc., Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Rule 3.F. of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, on or before February 5, 2021, the Plaintiff must notify the Court and its adversary in writing whether (1) it intends to file an amended pleading and when it will do so or (2) it will rely on the pleading being attacked. The Plaintiff on notice that declining to amend its pleadings to timely respond to a fully briefed argument in the Defendant’s 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 the Plaintiff chooses to amend, the Defendant 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. The initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 5, 2021, is adjourned and all discovery is stayed pending disposition of the 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. AN \ ig Dated: January 27, 2021 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc. (Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related