Faulkner v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-00242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Faulkner v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Judge Broderick ordered Equinox to choose how to proceed with its pending motion to dismiss after plaintiffs amended their complaint.
The plaintiffs and Equinox Holdings, Inc.; the order required Equinox Holdings, Inc. to choose how to proceed with its pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Faulkner v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 5, 2022, while Equinox Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court explained that, after a proper amendment, it could either treat the pending motion as no longer applicable or evaluate it using the amended complaint's allegations.
Judge Broderick ordered Equinox to file a letter within seven days stating which option it wanted: treating the motion as no longer applicable, while allowing a new motion to be filed, or asking the court to evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Faulkner v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00242
- Denise Cote
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
On April 5, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Equinox Holdings, Inc. 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 requires a ruling—or evaluate the motion based on the allegations in the amended complaint.
Order
The court ordered Equinox Holdings, Inc. to file a letter within seven days choosing between two options: have its current motion to dismiss deemed moot without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or have the court evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.