Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:24-cv-08023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC, Judge Carter denied the initial motion as moot, denied two related requests, and allowed a renewed motion.
Dazzling Diam LLC and Garfield Refining, LLC; the order controls the handling and briefing of Garfield Refining’s anticipated renewed motion.
What happened
In Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC, Garfield Refining filed a motion to require arbitration or, alternatively, to dismiss the original complaint. Dazzling Diam then filed an amended complaint as allowed under the federal rules.
Because the amended complaint replaced the original complaint, the court treated Garfield Refining’s initial motion as no longer presenting a live issue. Garfield Refining also sought a conference before filing a renewed motion and more time to reply to the original opposition.
Judge Andrew L. Carter denied the initial motion as moot, denied the request for a conference and the request for more time, and granted Garfield Refining permission to file a renewed motion. The court set deadlines for the renewed motion, opposition, and reply, and directed the clerk to terminate the three listed motions.
The detailed version
- Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08023
- Andrew Carter
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
Garfield Refining initially moved to compel arbitration—that is, to require the dispute to be decided through arbitration—and alternatively moved to dismiss Dazzling Diam’s original complaint. The motion was filed at ECF No. 15.
Dazzling Diam requested more time to respond and then filed an amended complaint as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. After the amended complaint was filed, Garfield Refining requested a premotion conference concerning an anticipated renewed motion. Garfield Refining later sought, by consent, more time to file its reply to the opposition to the initial motion.
Rulings
The court held that the initial motion was moot because Dazzling Diam had filed an amended complaint and Garfield Refining anticipated filing a renewed motion directed to that amended complaint. The court therefore denied as moot the initial motion at ECF No. 15.
The court also denied Garfield Refining’s request for a premotion conference at ECF No. 22 and its consent letter motion for an extension of time to file a reply at ECF No. 26. The court granted Garfield Refining leave to file a renewed motion.
Next Steps and Effect
The court ordered the parties to follow this schedule for the renewed motion: opening submission on March 6, 2025; opposition on March 20, 2025; and reply on March 27, 2025. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 15, 22, and 26. The order did not decide whether arbitration was required or whether the amended complaint should be dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.