STP Investments LLC n/k/a STP Flex LLC v. NeoTek Energy, Inc.

Background

STP Investments LLC, now known as STP Flex LLC, Elliot Prigozen, and Richard Sheridan are the plaintiffs. NeoTek Energy, Inc. is the defendant. On April 6, 2022, NeoTek filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(2) concerns whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Order

The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss. It ordered the plaintiffs to notify the court by April 18, 2022, whether they intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the existing complaint.

If the plaintiffs chose not to amend, the motion would proceed under the usual schedule, and the court stated that it was unlikely to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion. The court said the deadlines for opposition and reply papers would be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules unless the court ordered otherwise.

If the plaintiffs chose to amend, they had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court of that choice. Within 21 days after the amendment, NeoTek could file an answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that it was relying on its original motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order requiring the plaintiffs to choose between amending the complaint and proceeding on the existing complaint. The opinion does not grant or deny NeoTek’s motion to dismiss.