Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 12, 2021

Regent Music Corporation v. Delphine Productions S.A.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-04608
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Regent Music v. Delphine Productions, Judge Broderick ordered defendants to file a letter within seven days choosing how to proceed with their pending dismissal motion.

Who this affects

The defendants must file a letter within seven days choosing how the court should handle their pending motion to dismiss; the plaintiff's amended complaint is the pleading the court may use to evaluate that motion.

What happened

Regent Music Corporation v. Delphine Productions S.A. is an order issued after the plaintiff filed an amended complaint while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending.

The court ordered the defendants to file a letter within seven days stating whether the motion should be treated as moot, allowing them to file a new motion, or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Regent Music Corporation v. Delphine Productions S.A. · No. 1:20-cv-04608
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Jan. 12, 2021

Background

On January 11, 2021, Regent Music Corporation filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The defendants had a pending motion to dismiss.

Order

The court ordered the defendants to file a letter within seven days stating which of two options they preferred: whether the pending motion to dismiss should be deemed moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion in light of the facts alleged in the amended complaint.

Disposition and Effect

The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the claims. It directed the defendants to state how they wanted the court to handle the pending motion after the amended complaint was filed.

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.