Opinion
21 CV 10411 (VB)
06-03-2022
RONALD BRODEN, Plaintiff, v. BORIS RUBINSTEIN, M.D., M.P.H., Defendant.
ORDER
VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 27, 2022, defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint. (Doc. #18).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, by no later than June 10, 2022, plaintiff must notify the Court by letter whether he (i) intends to file a second amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss, or (ii) will rely on the amended complaint that is the subject of the motion to dismiss.
If plaintiff elects not to file a second amended complaint, the motion will proceed in the regular course, and the Court is unlikely to grant plaintiff a further opportunity to amend to address the purported deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed arguments in defendant's motion. 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”); accord F5 Cap. v, Pappas, 856 F.3d 61, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2017). The time to file opposing and reply papers shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
If plaintiff elects to file a second amended complaint, he must do so by no later than 14 days after notifying the Court of his intent to do so. Within 21 days of such amendment, defendant may either: (i) file an answer to the second amended complaint; (ii) file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint; or (iii) notify the Court by letter that he is relying on the initially filed motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED: