Ruilova v. 443 Lexington Ave, Inc.

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: _ DATE FILED: MAR.1_ □□□□□ Andres Ruilova, et al., Plaintiffs, 19-CV-5205 (AJN) —-V—- ORDER Lexington Ave, Inc., et al., Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On March 12, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 71. Pursuant to Rule 3.F of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, on or before March 23, 2019, Plaintiffs must notify the Court and its adversary in writing whether (1) they intend to file an amended pleading and when it will do so or (2) they will rely on the pleading being attacked. Plaintiffs are on notice that declining to amend their pleadings to timely respond to a fully briefed argument in Defendants’ 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 Defendants’ briefing. See Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC., 797 F.3d 160 (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 Plaintiffs choose to amend, Defendants may then (a) file an answer; (b) file a new motion to dismiss; or (c) submit a letter stating that it relies 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.

~ Dated: March! 2020 New York, New York LISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge