Murray v. AET Inc. Ltd
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-03360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Murray v. AET Inc. Ltd, Judge Broderick ordered defendants to say whether their pending dismissal motion should be treated as moot after amendment.
The defendants, AET Inc. Ltd and MV Eagle Turin, must file a letter within seven days choosing how the court should handle their pending motion to dismiss. The order also determines how Erin F. Murray’s amended complaint will affect that motion.
What happened
In Murray v. AET Inc. Ltd, Erin F. Murray filed an amended complaint on June 26, 2021, while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court explained that it could either treat the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the facts in the amended complaint.
Judge Broderick ordered the defendants to file a letter within seven days choosing between those options; he did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
The detailed version
- Murray v. AET Inc. Ltd · No. 1:21-cv-03360
- Vernon Broderick
- June 28, 2021
Background
Erin F. Murray filed an amended complaint on June 26, 2021, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). At that time, AET Inc. Ltd and MV Eagle Turin had a motion to dismiss that was still 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 or evaluate the motion using the facts alleged in the amended complaint.
Order
The court ordered the 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 wanted the court to evaluate the existing motion in light of the amended complaint. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.