Shadija v. Apollo Manufacturing Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-03502
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shadija v. Apollo Manufacturing Inc., Judge Broderick granted leave to amend and denied the dismissal motion as moot without prejudice.
The plaintiffs, including Dhiraj Shadija on behalf of himself and FLSA collective plaintiffs, may file a first amended complaint. Apollo Manufacturing Inc., Jai Sadhwani, and Alicia Sadhwani may answer or file a new motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3). Alaska Gold Trading Company had already been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.
What happened
In Shadija v. Apollo Manufacturing Inc., the plaintiffs asked to file a first amended complaint and for more time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants did not oppose the request to amend.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request and ordered them to file the amended complaint within seven days. The court also ruled that the pending motion to dismiss was denied as moot without prejudice to the defendants’ filing an answer or a new motion to dismiss under the federal rule governing amended pleadings.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also found that the plaintiffs’ request for more time concerning Alaska Gold Trading Company was moot because the plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed that defendant. The order did not decide the merits of the claims or the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Shadija v. Apollo Manufacturing Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03502
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 24, 2025
Background
On November 21, 2024, the court ordered the plaintiffs, among other things, to file proof of service concerning Alaska Gold Trading Company. The plaintiffs later requested more time to respond, but then voluntarily dismissed Alaska Gold Trading Company. The court therefore found the request for additional time moot.
Separately, Apollo Manufacturing Inc., Jai Sadhwani, and Alicia Sadhwani had filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs later asked for permission to file a first amended complaint and for more time to oppose that motion. The court granted the requested extension for opposing the dismissal motion and gave the defendants until January 13, 2025, to respond to the request to amend. The defendants did not oppose the request.
Rulings
Because the request was unopposed, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file the first amended complaint and ordered them to file it within seven days.
The court denied the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss as moot without prejudice to the defendants’ filing an answer or refiling a new motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3). The Clerk was directed to terminate the docket entries for the motion to dismiss and the request for additional time as moot.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed the amendment of the pleadings and the status of the pending motion. It did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ claims were legally valid or whether the defendants ultimately should prevail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.