Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Carrot Cart, Inc. d/b/a Dupe.com
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-06597
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams-Sonoma v. Carrot Cart, Judge Broderick denied the earlier dismissal motion as moot after Williams-Sonoma amended its complaint.
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. and Carrot Cart, Inc. d/b/a Dupe.com; the order terminated Carrot Cart’s earlier motion to dismiss as moot.
What happened
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. sued Carrot Cart, Inc. d/b/a Dupe.com. Carrot Cart moved to dismiss the original complaint, but Williams-Sonoma later filed an amended complaint.
Because the amended complaint replaced the original complaint, the court considered the earlier dismissal motion no longer applicable. The order therefore denied that motion as moot and directed the clerk to terminate it.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on September 10, 2025. The order did not decide the newer motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Carrot Cart, Inc. d/b/a Dupe.com · No. 1:24-cv-06597
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 10, 2025
Background
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. filed the action on August 30, 2024. Carrot Cart, Inc. d/b/a Dupe.com then moved to dismiss the complaint on November 21, 2024. Williams-Sonoma filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2025, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Carrot Cart filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 28, 2025.
Ruling
The court stated that, when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while an earlier dismissal motion is pending, the court may deny the earlier motion as moot or evaluate it using the amended complaint. Here, the court ordered that Carrot Cart’s November 21, 2024 motion to dismiss the original complaint was denied as moot because of the later motion addressing the amended complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motion at docket entry 21.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed only the November 21, 2024 motion to dismiss. It did not state an outcome for the February 28, 2025 motion to dismiss the amended complaint and did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.