Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-09012
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Judge Castel received a request about discovery and a pending dismissal motion, but the provided text contains no court ruling.
Kamara and Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated; the filing concerns the timing of Pepperidge Farm’s answer, the pending motion to dismiss, and discovery in the case.
What happened
Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated is presented through a letter from the plaintiff’s lawyer to the court. The letter says Pepperidge Farm filed a motion seeking dismissal of the entire First Amended Complaint and also filed an answer.
The plaintiff asked the court to lift a discovery stay, treat the dismissal motion as no longer live because Pepperidge Farm filed an answer, or schedule a conference to begin discovery. The letter argued that filing a motion under Rule 12 generally pauses the deadline to answer the entire complaint and that the defendant’s answer should be disregarded.
The provided text does not include a decision or order by Judge P. Kevin Castel. It therefore does not show whether any request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
The detailed version
- Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated · No. 1:20-cv-09012
- P. Castel
- June 3, 2021
What the Provided Text Is
The text is a May 28, 2021 letter from Spencer Sheehan, identified as counsel for the plaintiff, addressed to District Judge P. Kevin Castel. It is an advocate’s filing, not a judicial opinion or order. The supplied case metadata lists June 3, 2021 as the filing date.
Background
The letter states that the court had stayed discovery pending resolution of Pepperidge Farm’s expected motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. It further states that Pepperidge Farm filed the motion to dismiss and an answer on May 28, 2021.
Plaintiff’s Requests and Arguments
The plaintiff asked the court to lift the discovery stay, determine that the motion to dismiss was moot, and/or schedule a conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) so discovery could begin. The plaintiff also asked that Pepperidge Farm’s answer be disregarded.
The letter argued that Rule 12 generally pauses the deadline for a defendant to answer while a motion to dismiss is pending. It relied on cited decisions and legal commentary concerning whether a motion addressing only part of a complaint pauses the deadline for answering the entire complaint. The letter emphasized that Pepperidge Farm’s motion sought dismissal of the entire First Amended Complaint, rather than only some claims.
The plaintiff also argued that filing an answer before the court decides a motion to dismiss can make the motion moot because the answer responds to the complaint. The letter cited decisions supporting that position and asserted that Pepperidge Farm should not benefit from both the discovery stay and its decision to file an answer.
Disposition
The provided text contains no ruling by Judge P. Kevin Castel. It does not state that any motion was granted, denied, dismissed, or otherwise resolved. The opinion text is therefore insufficient to identify a judicial holding or final disposition.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.