Opinion
03-CV-679S.
March 17, 2004
DECISION AND ORDER
1. On October 14, 2003, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff responded to Defendants' motion with a Cross-Motion to Amend her Complaint, filed on November 17, 2003. Defendant filed a reply memorandum on December 2, 2003. Upon review of those papers, this Court discovered that the parties had discussed the possibility of stipulating to a proposed Amended Complaint, which would obviate the need for further pleadings-based motions. Accordingly, by Order filed December 17, 2003, this Court strongly encouraged counsel to reach an agreement as to a proposed Amended Complaint to eliminate further judicial involvement.
2. On or about January 2, 2004, Defendants submitted a stipulation to this Court related to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. In the accompanying cover letter, Defendants represented that: "Pursuant to Your Honor's Order, dated December 16, 2003, plaintiff served a proposed amended complaint which defendants have agreed to accept." (Emphasis added.) The accompanying stipulation that this Court "So Ordered" and filed on January 8, 2004, provides that Defendants agreed to accept service of the proposed Amended Complaint, that Defendants would have until January 21, 2004, to respond to the Amended Complaint, and that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was withdrawn.
3. On January 22, 2004, Defendants filed a second Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff responded with a Cross-Motion to Amend her Complaint, filed on February 26, 2004. Oral argument on this motion is currently set for Friday, March 19, 2004. However, this Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and the history of this litigation and finds that oral argument is unnecessary. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Amend is denied as moot.
4. First, Plaintiff rightfully argues that Defendants' acceptance of its Amended Complaint should resolve the motions currently before this Court. Indeed, the clear intent of this Court's initial Order encouraging the parties to agree to an Amended Complaint was to eliminate the need for further pleadings-based motions. This came as a result of Defendants' representation in their initial papers that they were amenable to agreeing to an Amended Complaint.
Given the fact that Defendants' first Motion to Dismiss was premised upon Rule 12(b)(6), there was no other reason for this Court's initial order encouraging the parties to agree to an Amended Complaint but to resolve the sufficiency of Plaintiff's pleadings. Service of the Complaint was not an issue in the first Motion to Dismiss, so any argument by Defendants that they agreed to accept service of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, rather than accept the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint, is unpersuasive. This Court finds that Defendants' filing of a second Motion to Dismiss violates the spirit of this Court's December 17, 2003 Order and the understanding that counsel would work toward agreeing on a sufficient Amended Complaint.
5. Second, this Court's Order filed January 8, 2004, based on the parties' stipulation, sets January 21, 2004, as the deadline for Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The docket indicates that Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on January 22, 2004. Thus, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is also untimely.
6. Finally, this Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and finds that it is sufficiently pled. The "principle function of pleadings under the Federal Rules is to give the adverse party fair notice of the claim asserted so as to enable him to answer and prepare for trial." Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Thus, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). The Amended Complaint meets this standard. The parties are directed to proceed on the Amended Complaint.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Docket No. 19) is DENIED.
FURTHER, that Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Amend its Amended Complaint (Docket No. 24) is DENIED as moot.
FURTHER, that the oral argument scheduled before this Court for Friday, March 19, 2004, is cancelled.
SO ORDERED.