Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

15-7084 - The Estate of Gennaro Salvatore Izzo et al v. Vanguard Funding, LLC et al

Download Files


Document in Context
15-7084 - The Estate of Gennaro Salvatore Izzo et al v. Vanguard Funding, LLC et al
July 2, 2016
PDF | More
DECISION & ORDER - Without reaching the merits of the Defendants pending motions to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court, on its own motion, dismisses the complaint under the provisions of Rule 8, without prejudice to refiling. However, given the extraordinary length and breadth of the original complaint - as well as the indication from Plaintiffs counsel that he would actually like to enlarge his submission, see, e.g., Bythewood Aff. 2 (requesting permission to amend the complaint in order to add additional material) - the Court will place restrictions on the form of any amended pleading. Also, with the exception of Andre S. Haynes, Esq., none of the attorneys in this case has filed a Notice of Appearance. For the convenience of the Court and counsel, all attorneys appearing in this complex multi-defendant action are requested to immediately file a Notice of Appearance on ECF. The Court directs that the Plaintiffs amended complaint be filed no later than July 25, 2016. Service upon the appearing Defendants, through their attorneys of record via ECF, shall constitute good and sufficient service. However, the Plaintiff shall effectuate personal service in accordance with the Federal Rules upon any newly-added parties and parties who, to date, have not appeared. Also, the Court directs that, on or before August 15, 2016, the Defendants shall either: file an answer to the amended complaint; advise the Court in writing on ECF that they consent to having the Court accept their previously-filed motions to dismiss as relating to the amended complaint; or file supplemental motion papers in light of the amendment. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 7/2/2016. c/ecf. (Coleman, Laurie)
March 30, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER - Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims - namely, the first through fifth causes of action - over which the Court has original jurisdiction. In this regard, although the Defendant Radelman has filed neither an answer to the amended complaint nor a pre-answer motion to dismiss, in its discretion, the Court sua sponte dismisses the federal claims as against her on the ground that they fail to state plausible claims upon which relief may be granted. Further, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action, which are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate forum. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/30/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)