2109971 Ontario Inc. v. Samira Furniture Ltd
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-04092
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In 2109971 Ontario Inc. v. Samira Furniture Ltd., Judge Broderick ordered defendants to choose how the court should handle their pending dismissal motion.
The defendants, who were required to tell the court how they wanted the pending motion to dismiss handled.
What happened
In 2109971 Ontario Inc. v. Samira Furniture Ltd., the plaintiff filed an amended complaint while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court explained that defendants could ask to treat their existing motion as no longer applicable, while preserving the option to file a new motion, or could ask the court to evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.
Judge Broderick ordered the defendants to file a letter within seven days stating which option they chose. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- 2109971 Ontario Inc. v. Samira Furniture Ltd · No. 1:21-cv-04092
- Denise Cote
- June 22, 2021
Background
On June 17, 2021, 2109971 Ontario Inc. 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 analysis
The court stated 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—meaning it no longer needs to be decided—or evaluate the motion based on the allegations in the amended complaint.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the defendants to file a letter within seven days stating whether they wanted the pending motion to dismiss deemed moot without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or wanted the court to evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.