Hartmann v. Popcornflix.com LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-04923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hartmann v. Popcornflix.com LLC, Judge Broderick ordered defendants to choose whether to treat their pending dismissal motion as moot or evaluate it against the amended complaint.
Hartmann and the defendants, Popcornflix.com LLC and Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment, Inc.; the defendants were required to state how they wanted their pending motion to dismiss handled.
What happened
In Hartmann v. Popcornflix.com LLC, Hartmann filed an amended complaint on November 30, 2020, while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court ordered the defendants to file a letter within seven days stating whether they wanted the pending motion treated as moot, allowing them to file a new motion, or evaluated under the amended complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of the case; he directed the defendants to choose how the pending motion should proceed.
The detailed version
- Hartmann v. Popcornflix.com LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04923
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 1, 2020
Background
On November 30, 2020, Hartmann filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The defendants had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion remained pending.
Court’s Order
The court explained that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the amended complaint’s allegations.
The court ordered the defendants to file a letter within seven days stating which option they preferred: treating the current motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or having the court evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint.
What the Order Decided
The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the claims. Judge Vernon S. Broderick’s order addressed how the pending motion should proceed after the amended complaint was filed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.