Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 25, 2022

Contreras v. TD Associates, LLC

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:21-cv-09096
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Contreras v. TD Associates, Judge Broderick ordered the defendant to choose how its pending dismissal motion should proceed after an amended complaint.

Who this affects

Yensy Contreras and TD Associates, LLC; TD Associates was ordered to file a letter within seven days stating how it wanted its pending motion to dismiss handled.

What happened

In Contreras v. TD Associates, LLC, Yensy Contreras filed an amended complaint on January 19, 2022, while TD Associates, LLC’s motion to dismiss was still pending.

The court gave TD Associates seven days to state whether the motion should be treated as moot, allowing it to file a new motion under the applicable rule, or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss. He ordered TD Associates to file the required letter explaining which option it wanted.

The detailed version

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

Case
Contreras v. TD Associates, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09096
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Jan. 25, 2022

Background

On January 19, 2022, Yensy Contreras filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). TD Associates, LLC had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion was still pending.

Court’s Order

The court explained 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 it using the allegations in the amended complaint.

The court ordered TD Associates to file a letter within seven days choosing between two options: (1) treating its current motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3); or (2) asking the court to evaluate the current motion using the facts alleged in the amended complaint.

What the Order Did Not Decide

The order did not rule on whether the amended complaint stated a claim or whether TD Associates’s motion to dismiss should ultimately be granted or denied.

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.