Byrne v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America
Brian Byrne, individually and as representative of classes of similarly situated participants in the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA) Code Section 401(k) Plan and the TIAA Retirement Plan v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA), et al.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-04228
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brian Byrne v. TIAA, Judge Broderick denied as moot TIAA’s earlier motion to dismiss after Byrne amended his complaint.
Brian Byrne, the proposed classes of plan participants he seeks to represent, and the defendants, including Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA). The order terminated the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot; it did not resolve the claims.
What happened
Brian Byrne sued Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA) on behalf of himself and proposed classes of plan participants. TIAA and other defendants moved to dismiss Byrne’s original complaint.
Before the court ruled on that motion, Byrne filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The defendants asked the court to deny their earlier motion as moot because they would respond to the amended complaint under the court’s schedule.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the defendants’ August 13, 2025 motion to dismiss as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion. The order did not decide whether Byrne’s claims were legally sufficient.
The detailed version
- Byrne v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America · No. 1:25-cv-04228
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 19, 2025
Background Brian Byrne filed the complaint on May 20, 2025. He sued individually and as a representative of proposed classes of similarly situated participants in the TIAA Code Section 401(k) Plan and the TIAA Retirement Plan. On August 13, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
Amended Complaint and Requested Action On September 3, 2025, Byrne filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The court had set October 14, 2025, as the deadline for the defendants’ response to the amended complaint. The defendants asked the court to deny their earlier motion to dismiss as moot, meaning no longer requiring a ruling, so they could file a new motion addressing the amended complaint.
Ruling Judge Vernon S. Broderick held that, in light of the forthcoming motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the defendants’ request, the defendants’ August 13, 2025 motion to dismiss the original complaint was denied as moot. He directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 22. The order addressed only the status of the earlier motion and did not decide the merits of Byrne’s claims or the sufficiency of the amended complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.