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”
How later courts described this case
- 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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Usbe SDNY
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ae FILED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK neice
Compass, Inc., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
21-cv-2195 (AJN)
—V—
ORDER
Real Estate Board of New York, Inc.,
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
On May 18, 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 June 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs must notify
the Court and their adversary 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. The Plaintiffs are on
notice that declining to amend their pleadings to timely respond to a fully briefed argument in the
Defendant’s motion to dismiss may 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 Plaintiffs choose to amend, the 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. AN \ ig
@
Dated: May 20, 2021
New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge