Taylor v. A&H Security Services
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:25-cv-07180
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kareem B. Taylor v. A&H Security Services, Judge Caproni directed consideration of A&H’s dismissal motion using Taylor’s amended complaint.
Kareem B. Taylor and A&H Security Services, LLC, particularly their pending motion and amended complaint.
What happened
In Kareem B. Taylor v. A&H Security Services, LLC, A&H filed a motion asking the court to dismiss Taylor’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Taylor opposed the motion and filed an amended complaint.
A&H asked whether the court would treat the pending motion as no longer relevant or evaluate it using the amended complaint. The court’s notation appears to direct consideration of the motion in light of the amended complaint and directs the clerk to terminate a docket entry identified as ECF No. 22.
The ruling concerns how the pending dismissal motion should be handled, not whether Taylor ultimately wins the underlying claims. Judge Caproni’s identity is supplied in the case information, although the letter itself is addressed to and identifies Valerie Figueredo as a United States Magistrate Judge.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. A&H Security Services · No. 1:25-cv-07180
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 12, 2025
Background
A&H Security Services, LLC filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The letter says A&H filed that motion on September 3, 2025, at ECF No. 7. Taylor opposed the motion and submitted an amended complaint at ECF No. 15.
Issue Presented
A&H asked the court to clarify whether Taylor’s amended complaint made the pending motion no longer relevant, requiring A&H to respond to the amended complaint, or whether the court would evaluate the existing motion using the allegations in the amended complaint. The letter cites a case stating that a court may take either approach when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a dismissal motion is pending.
Court’s Action
The court’s notation appears to state that it will consider the motion identified at ECF No. 7 in light of the facts alleged in the amended complaint. It also directs the clerk to terminate the docket entry identified as ECF No. 22. The available text does not clearly state whether the motion at ECF No. 7 was granted, denied, or dismissed as moot, so no such disposition is reported here.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses the handling of a pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion and does not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.