Sahiti v. Tarentum Ltd.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-07377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sahiti v. Tarentum Ltd., Judge Torres denied defendants’ earlier dismissal motion as moot and set deadlines for a new motion.
The ruling affects Blendi Sahiti and defendants Tarentum, Ltd., doing business as Ulivo, Fabio Camardi, and Manuela Calabrese. It denied defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss as moot and set deadlines for a further motion.
What happened
Sahiti v. Tarentum Ltd. concerns defendants’ request to dismiss a complaint in the Southern District of New York.
After the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the court set deadlines for defendants’ motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s opposition, and defendants’ reply. The order also referred certain defense applications to Kevin Nathaniel Fox for handling of non-dispositive pretrial motions.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the earlier motion to dismiss as moot because the amended complaint replaced the original complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 12 and 17.
The detailed version
- Sahiti v. Tarentum Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-07377
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 14, 2020
Background
Blendi Sahiti sued Tarentum, Ltd., doing business as Ulivo, and Fabio Camardi and Manuela Calabrese. The opinion does not describe the claims or the underlying dispute. The parties submitted pre-motion letters concerning a proposed motion to dismiss.
Court’s order
The court ordered defendants to file their motion to dismiss by March 2, 2020. Plaintiff’s opposition was due March 23, 2020, and defendants’ reply, if any, was due April 6, 2020.
The court directed defendants to seek permission from Kevin Nathaniel Fox to file the motion identified in the order as a motion “in Jimine” and a motion under Local Rule 54.2 for a security bond. The case had been referred to Judge Fox for non-dispositive pretrial motions.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres denied defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, as moot because defendants had filed it against the original complaint and plaintiff later filed an amended complaint. The court cited the rule that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and makes a motion directed at the original complaint moot. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 12 and 17. The order does not decide the merits of the claims or the proposed new motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.