Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 28, 2020

Murphy v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:19-cv-09919
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Murphy v. AMC Entertainment, Judge Torres denied AMC’s motion to dismiss as moot after Murphy filed an amended complaint.

Who this affects

The ruling affected AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.’s pending motion to dismiss; the court did not decide the merits of the amended complaint.

What happened

In Murphy v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., James Murphy filed an amended complaint on February 28, 2020, on behalf of himself and similarly situated people.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. had filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2020. The parties requested a new schedule for briefing that motion, and the court granted the request.

Judge Torres denied the motion to dismiss as moot and directed the clerk to terminate it from the docket. The order did not decide the claims in the amended complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Murphy v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09919
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Feb. 28, 2020

Background

James Murphy sued AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated. Murphy filed an amended complaint on February 28, 2020. AMC had previously filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2020.

Court’s Ruling

The parties requested a new briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss, and the court had granted that request. Because Murphy filed an amended complaint after the motion to dismiss the earlier complaint, the court ruled that AMC’s motion was moot. The court denied the motion to dismiss as moot.

The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 20. The order did not address the merits of the amended complaint.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.