C.Q. v. Estate of David Rockefeller
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-02205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In C.Q. v. Estate of David Rockefeller, Judge Broderick ordered defendants to state how the court should handle their pending dismissal motion.
C.Q. and the defendants, because the order required defendants to state how the pending motion to dismiss should be handled after the amended complaint was filed.
What happened
C.Q. v. Estate of David Rockefeller concerns an amended complaint that C.Q. filed while defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court explained that, after a proper amendment, it could either treat the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the amended complaint’s allegations.
Judge Broderick ordered defendants to file a letter within seven days stating which approach should be used; the order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- C.Q. v. Estate of David Rockefeller · No. 1:20-cv-02205
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 2, 2020
Background
On December 1, 2020, C.Q. filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants had a pending motion to dismiss.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss remains pending, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate the motion based on the allegations in the amended complaint.
Order
The court ordered defendants to file a letter within seven days stating whether their motion to dismiss should be treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint. The order did not rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.