Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 20, 2024

Khan v. A&H Security Services, LLC

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:24-cv-03491
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Khan v. A&H Security Services, LLC, Judge Broderick ordered a decision about how to handle the pending dismissal motion.

Who this affects

A&H Security Services, LLC must choose how to proceed with its pending motion to dismiss; the order does not resolve the claims or the motion.

What happened

Khan v. A&H Security Services, LLC concerns a pending motion to dismiss and an amended complaint filed by Murad Khan on June 18, 2024.

Because the complaint was amended while the dismissal motion was pending, the court gave the defendant two choices: treat the current motion as moot and file a new one, or have the court evaluate the current motion using the amended complaint.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the defendant to send a letter within seven days choosing between those options. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Khan v. A&H Security Services, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-03491
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 20, 2024

Background

Murad Khan filed an amended complaint on June 18, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). A&H Security Services, LLC had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion was still pending.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint.

Order

The court ordered A&H Security Services, LLC to file a letter within seven days stating whether it wanted the current motion to dismiss treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or whether it wanted the court to evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.