Poletti v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-07603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Terence Poletti v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company, Judge Broderick denied as moot defendants’ motion to dismiss an earlier complaint after plaintiffs amended it.
The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was denied as moot; the order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
What happened
In Terence Poletti et al. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., et al., the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.
The plaintiffs later received permission to amend their complaint and filed a Third Amended Complaint. Because the earlier complaint was replaced, the court ruled that the defendants’ motion was no longer relevant.
Judge Broderick denied the motion to dismiss as moot and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion from the court’s docket. The order did not decide the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- Poletti v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York · No. 1:21-cv-07603
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 12, 2025
Background
On November 30, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On March 9, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for permission to amend the operative complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on March 23, 2023.
Reason for the ruling
Because the plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was no longer the operative pleading. The court therefore determined that the defendants’ motion directed at the Second Amended Complaint was moot, meaning that the court no longer needed to decide that motion.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, filed at Doc. 42, was denied as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion from the docket. The order did not rule on the merits of the claims or on whether the Third Amended Complaint stated a valid claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.