McBryde-O'Neal v. Polichetti et al

Filing 67

ORDER Plaintiff has until July 8, 2024 to file her Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), in which she shall name as defendants (1) the individuals currently named as defendants in the amended complaint and (2) any new defendants she wishes to include in this case who were identified in response to the Court's Valentin orders. The SAC will be a replacement for and not an addition to the amended complaint and the original complaint. This means that any information in the amended complaint and the original complaint but not the SAC will not be considered part of the SAC. All defendants named in the SAC have until August 5, 2024 to file their anticipated motion(s) to dismiss the SAC including either (a) a brief in support of their motion(s) to dismiss the SAC or (b) a statement that they are relying on the legal arguments in the brief in support of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF 64) plus, if they wish, a supplemental brief raising any additional a rguments in support of dismissing the SAC. Plaintiff has until September 3, 2024 to oppose the anticipated motion(s) to dismiss the SAC. Defendants named in the SAC have until September 17, 2024 to file reply briefs, if any, in further support of t heir anticipated motion(s) to dismiss the SAC. To the extent that Plaintiff later learns, through exchanging evidence with parties and non-parties in connection with this matter, of additional potential defendants, she may at that time make a moti on to amend the SAC to add such additional defendants. If Plaintiff makes such a motion to amend in the future, I will give it due consideration at the time. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Amended Pleadings due by 7/8/2024., Motions due by 8/5/2024., Replies due by 9/17/2024., Responses due by 9/3/2024) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky on 7/3/2024) (jca)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LAVERNE MCBRYDE-O’NEAL, Plaintiff, 23-CV-10113 (JPC) (RFT) -againstTASK FORCE OFFICE DINO POLICHETTI, et al. ORDER Defendants. ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff has until July 8, 2024 to file her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), in which she shall name as defendants (1) the individuals currently named as defendants in the amended complaint and (2) any new defendants she wishes to include in this case who were identified in response to the Court’s Valentin orders. The SAC will be a replacement for and not an addition to the amended complaint and the original complaint. This means that any information in the amended complaint and the original complaint but not the SAC will not be considered part of the SAC. All defendants named in the SAC have until August 5, 2024 to file their anticipated motion(s) to dismiss the SAC including either (a) a brief in support of their motion(s) to dismiss the SAC or (b) a statement that they are relying on the legal arguments in the brief in support of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF 64) plus, if they wish, a supplemental brief raising any additional arguments in support of dismissing the SAC. Plaintiff has until September 3, 2024 to oppose the anticipated motion(s) to dismiss the SAC. Defendants named in the SAC have until September 17, 2024 to file reply briefs, if any, in further support of their anticipated motion(s) to dismiss the SAC. To the extent that Plaintiff later learns, through exchanging evidence with parties and non-parties in connection with this matter, of additional potential defendants, she may at that time make a motion to amend the SAC to add such additional defendants. If Plaintiff makes such a motion to amend in the future, I will give it due consideration at the time. DATED: July 3, 2024 New York, NY SO ORDERED. __________________________ ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?