Ocampo v. 455 Hospitality LLC
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:14-cv-09614
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ocampo v. 455 Hospitality LLC, Judge Karas notified the parties that he may convert the dismissal motion into a summary-judgment motion.
The order affects the plaintiffs in the action and the remaining Moving Defendants, Browne & Appel, LLC and Alexander Sirotkin, by setting the procedure and deadlines for further briefing on the pending motion.
What happened
In Ocampo v. 455 Hospitality LLC, defendants Browne & Appel, LLC and Alexander Sirotkin asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint.
Both sides submitted materials outside the complaint, including Department of Labor documents, declarations, and deposition excerpts. The court explained that it generally cannot consider such materials when deciding a dismissal motion unless it excludes them or converts the motion into one for summary judgment.
Judge Karas gave the parties notice that he intended to convert the motion and set deadlines for supplemental filings about whether the relation-back doctrine applies. He terminated the pending dismissal motion, which the defendants may renew after submitting the additional materials; the court did not decide the motion’s merits.
The detailed version
- Ocampo v. 455 Hospitality LLC · No. 7:14-cv-09614
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 28, 2020
Background
Defendants Browne & Appel, LLC ("B&A") and Alexander Sirotkin filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint. The opinion states that other defendants initially joined the motion, but the plaintiffs later informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle with those defendants, leaving B&A and Sirotkin as the Moving Defendants for purposes of the motion.
The plaintiffs relied on materials outside the complaint in opposing dismissal, including declarations connected to an earlier motion to amend, Department of Labor complaints, and Department of Labor response letters. The Moving Defendants likewise relied on deposition-transcript excerpts in their reply. The parties did not explain why the court could consider these materials while deciding a motion to dismiss.
Court’s Analysis
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion ordinarily is decided based on the complaint, documents attached to or incorporated into it, and matters subject to judicial notice. Under Rule 12(d), if the court considers material outside the pleadings rather than excluding it, the motion must be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. The parties must receive a reasonable opportunity to submit all material relevant to that motion.
The court found that conversion was appropriate because both sides had relied on outside materials. It also found that the parties should receive notice and an opportunity to submit additional relevant materials before the court decided the motion as one for summary judgment. The opinion identified the relation-back doctrine, particularly under New York law, as an issue relevant to the supplemental submissions.
Order
Judge Kenneth M. Karas notified the parties of the court’s intention to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. He directed the Moving Defendants to file supplemental materials and briefing by October 12, 2020, the plaintiffs to respond by October 26, 2020, and the Moving Defendants to reply by November 2, 2020. The parties could instead notify the court by October 12 that they would not submit additional materials. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, which the opinion states would be renewed after the Moving Defendants’ supplemental submission. The court did not decide whether dismissal was warranted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.