Currin v. Glenwood Management Corp.
- Denise Cote
- 1:20-cv-06047
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Currin v. Glenwood Management Corp., Judge Broderick ordered defendants to say whether their pending dismissal motion should be treated as moot or evaluated.
The order directly affected defendants, who had to choose how to proceed with their pending motion to dismiss, and Charlie G. Currin, who received a mailed copy of the order.
What happened
In Currin v. Glenwood Management Corp., Charlie G. Currin filed an amended complaint on February 25, 2021, 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 and allow a new motion, or evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered defendants to file a letter within seven days choosing between those options. The clerk was also ordered to mail the order to Currin, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- Currin v. Glenwood Management Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-06047
- Denise Cote
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff Charlie G. Currin 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 Analysis
The court cited a prior appellate decision stating that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss remains pending, the district 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 they wanted the pending motion to dismiss treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or whether they wanted the court to evaluate the current motion using the amended complaint. The court also ordered the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Currin, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Effect
The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of the case. It directed defendants to choose how the pending motion should be handled.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.