Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery v. The Hartford Financial Services Group
Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery, P.C. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-05407
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Judge Broderick ordered defendants to choose how to proceed with their pending dismissal motion.
Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery, P.C. and the defendants, including The Hartford Financial Services Group.
What happened
Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery, P.C. filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2020, while defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court ordered defendants to send a letter within seven days stating whether they wanted the motion treated as moot, allowing them to file a new motion, or wanted the court to evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order. He directed defendants to choose between those two options.
The detailed version
- Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery v. The Hartford Financial Services Group · No. 1:20-cv-05407
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 10, 2020
Background
On November 9, 2020, Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery, P.C. filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion was still pending.
Court’s Action
The court explained that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss remains pending, the court may either treat the pending motion as moot or evaluate it based on the amended complaint.
The court ordered defendants to file a letter within seven days stating which option they wanted: (1) have the current motion to dismiss deemed moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3); or (2) have the court evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint.
Result
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss in this order. The order only required defendants to state how they wanted the court to handle that motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.