The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
NADINE JOACHIN, DOC #:
DATE FILED: 4/16/ 2025
Plaintiff,
24-cv-4335 (MKV)
-against-
ORDER DENYING MOTION
AIG, THE UNITED STATES LIFE
FOR RECONSIDERATION
INSURANCE COMPANY, SCOTT
PIERCE, and MIKAIL ALSAFA,
Defendants.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration [ECF Nos. 11, 12] of the Court’s Order Denying
Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice [ECF No. 10 (“March Order”)] is DENIED.
While the Court erred in stating that Defendants did not file proof of service of their motion to
dismiss, Plaintiff had not previously received notice of the Court’s earlier order granting Plaintiff
an opportunity to amend her complaint before such motion was filed and setting the deadline for
her to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6]. The Second Circuit has
admonished district courts to afford pro se plaintiffs special leniency. See Sledge v. Kooi, 564
F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 2009). In particular, the Second Circuit has stressed, the Court ordinarily
ought not dismiss a pro se Plaintiff’s case without ensuring that she has had sufficient notice of
the possibility of dismissal and an opportunity to cure her pleading and to oppose the motion to
dismiss. See Snider v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108, 113 (2d Cir. 1999); Moroshkin v. Dietsche, 2022
WL 16570779, at *1 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2022).
Plaintiff has now filed a notice of appearance in this action [ECF No. 16] in compliance
with the Court’s March Order. The Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to consent to receive
1
electronic notice of filings in this case.
As the Court stated in the March Order, Plaintiff must file any amended complaint by
May 5, 2025. This is Plaintiff’s final opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies identified
in Defendants’ motion papers [ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9] or the Court’s March Order. Failure to file
an amended complaint by May 5, 2025 will be deemed a waiver of the opportunity to amend.
Defendants shall respond to any amended complaint within 14 days of its filing. If Defendants
respond with a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff shall file an opposition by June 23, 2025. Any reply
is due June 30, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff chooses not to amend, Plaintiff shall file
an opposition to Defendants’ previously-filed motion to dismiss, filed at ECF numbers 7, 8, and
9, by May 5, 2025. Because, as indicated above, Defendants did previously serve that motion on
Plaintiff, the Court vacates its earlier ruling that Defendants must file a renewed motion with proof
of service of the motion [ECF No. 10 at 2]. Plaintiff is on notice that failure to file an opposition
by May 5, 2025 may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The Clerk of Court respectfully is requested to terminate ECF number 11.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 16, 2025
New York, New York ‘
Py oa aabagel
ited States District Judge