Safety Shot Inc. v. Chijet Motor Company, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-06420
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Safety Shot v. Chijet, Judge Broderick ordered Equiniti to say whether its pending dismissal motion should be treated as moot after Safety Shot amended its complaint.
Safety Shot Inc., Chijet Motor Company, Inc., and Equiniti Trust Company, LLC; the order specifically required Equiniti to submit a letter about its pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
Safety Shot Inc. filed an amended complaint against Chijet Motor Company, Inc. and Equiniti Trust Company, LLC on November 12, 2024, while Equiniti’s motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court ordered Equiniti to file a letter within seven days stating whether its motion should be treated as moot, allowing Equiniti to answer or file a new motion, or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss or the claims’ merits in this order.
The detailed version
- Safety Shot Inc. v. Chijet Motor Company, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06420
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 13, 2024
Background
Safety Shot Inc., identified in the caption as formerly known as Jupiter Wellness Inc., filed an amended complaint on November 12, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Equiniti Trust Company, LLC, formerly known as American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, had a motion to dismiss pending.
Order
The court explained that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss remains pending, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint.
The court ordered Equiniti to file a letter within seven days choosing whether its current motion to dismiss should be treated as moot, without prejudice to answering or filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or whether the court should evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint.
Result
The order did not grant or deny Equiniti’s motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of Safety Shot’s claims. It required Equiniti to state how it wanted the court to proceed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.