Doe 1 et al v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al

Filing 98

ORDER terminating 31 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 31 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; terminating 31 Motion to Transfer Case; terminating 31 Motion to Strike document 31 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 2(b)(3), (6), (7). MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (2). MOTION to Transfer Case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406, 1404. MOTION to Strike Document N o. 7 , paragraph 77. filed by Governor John De Jongh, 67 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Governor Kenneth Mapp, Attorney General Vincent Frazer, Government of the United States Virgin Islands, 72 MOTION to Dismiss . MOTION to Strike Document No. [7, paragraphs 63 and 64] . filed by First Lady Cecile De Jongh, 77 MOTION to Dismiss . MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . filed by Stacey Plaskett, 94 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct File Amended Complaint. filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 6, Jane Doe 3 from the record.; terminating 67 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 72 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 72 M otion to Strike document 31 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3), (6), (7). MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (2). MOTION to Transfer Case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. P. 12(b)(3), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406, 1404. MOTION to Strike Document No. 7 , paragraph 77. filed by Governor John De Jongh, 67 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Governor Kenneth Mapp, Attorney General Vincent Frazer , Government of the United States Virgin Islands, 72 MOTION to Dismiss . MOTION to Strike Document No. [7, paragraphs 63 and 64] . filed by First Lady Cecile De Jongh, 77 MOTION to Dismiss . MOTION to Dismis s for Lack of Jurisdiction . filed by Stacey Plaskett, 94 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct File Amended Complaint. filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 6, Jane Doe 3 from the record.; terminating 77 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 77 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting in part and denying in part 94 Motion to Amend/Correct 31 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3), (6), (7). MOTION to Di smiss for Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (2). MOTION to Transfer Case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406, 1404. MOTION to Strike Document No. 7 , paragraph 77., 67 MOTION to Dismiss ., 72 MOTION to Dismiss . MOTION to Strike Document No. [7, paragraphs 63 and 64] ., 77 MOTION to Dismiss . MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ., 94 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct File Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' motion is therefore GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to file the proposed SAC. Plaintiffs also request to take jurisdictional discovery "[i]n the event that the Court fi nds Plaintiffs' allegations in the SAC concerning jurisdiction and/or discovery lacking[.]" Dkt. 94-1 at 7. This request is DENIED as premature. Plaintiffs may renew any request for discovery in opposition to Defendants' motion to di smiss. The parties should comply with the following deadlines: Plaintiffs should file the SAC on the docket no later than May 10, 2024. Defendants should file motions to dismiss no later than June 3, 2024. Each memorandum of law should conform to t he page limits in the Court's practices, absent approval from the Court, which will not be granted absent good cause. Plaintiffs should file a single opposition no later than June 24, 2024. The single opposition brief is limited to the pages ut ilized by the Defendants as a whole. Defendants should file replies no later than July 8, 2024. Again, each reply should conform to the page limits in the Courts rules, absent approval from the Court. The parties are reminded that well-edited brief s that are short and to the point are more effective than oversized submissions that could have been more concise with better editing. The parties should take this into account in their briefing and any requests for excess pages. The hearing scheduled for June 21, 2024, is rescheduled to July 31, 2024 at 1PM. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 31, 67, 72, 77. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 5/9/2024) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JANE DOE 1 et al.,
Plaintiffs,
23-cv-10301 (AS)

-againstGOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATESVIRGIN ISLANDS, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.
ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge:
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, including based on lack
of jurisdiction, improper venue, and for failure to state a claim. Dkts. 31, 67, 72, 77. Plaintiffs now
move for leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC). Dkt. 94. While the Court takes no
position on the viability of the SAC, the proposed amendment appears to at least attempt to respond
to many of the arguments raised in Defendants’ motions. Granting Plaintiffs leave to amend at this
juncture will prevent duplicative motion practice and allow the Court to properly evaluate the
viability of Plaintiffs’ allegations. This is all consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)’s instruction
to “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore
GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to file the proposed SAC. Plaintiffs also request to
take jurisdictional discovery “[i]n the event that the Court finds Plaintiffs’ allegations in the SAC
concerning jurisdiction and/or discovery lacking[.]” Dkt. 94-1 at 7. This request is DENIED as
premature. Plaintiffs may renew any request for discovery in opposition to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss.
The parties should comply with the following deadlines:
•

Plaintiffs should file the SAC on the docket no later than May 10, 2024.

•

Defendants should file motions to dismiss no later than June 3, 2024. Each
memorandum of law should conform to the page limits in the Court’s practices,
absent approval from the Court, which will not be granted absent good cause.

•

Plaintiffs should file a single opposition no later than June 24, 2024. The single
opposition brief is limited to the pages utilized by the Defendants as a whole.

•

Defendants should file replies no later than July 8, 2024. Again, each reply should
conform to the page limits in the Court’s rules, absent approval from the Court.

•

The parties are reminded that well-edited briefs that are short and to the point are
more effective than oversized submissions that could have been more concise with
better editing. The parties should take this into account in their briefing and any
requests for excess pages.

•

The hearing scheduled for June 21, 2024, is rescheduled to July 31, 2024 at 1PM.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 31, 67, 72, 77.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2024
New York, New York

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN
United States District Judge

2