Contreras v. Teapigs US LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-09204
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Contreras v. Teapigs US LLC, Judge Broderick ordered the defendant to choose how its pending dismissal motion should proceed after an amended complaint.
Yensy Contreras and Teapigs US LLC, particularly the handling of Teapigs US LLC’s pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Contreras v. Teapigs US LLC, Yensy Contreras filed an amended complaint on January 20, 2022, while Teapigs US LLC’s motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court gave Teapigs US LLC two options: treat its existing motion as no longer active and file a new one, or ask the court to evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
Judge Broderick ordered Teapigs US LLC to send a letter within seven days stating which option it chose.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. Teapigs US LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09204
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 25, 2022
Background
On January 20, 2022, Yensy Contreras filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Teapigs US 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 Teapigs US LLC to file a letter within seven days choosing between two options: (1) have the current motion to dismiss treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3); or (2) have the court evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint.
Result and Scope
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the underlying claims. It addressed only how the pending motion should be handled after the amended complaint was filed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.