Doe 1 v. Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-06865
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jane Doe 1 v. Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Judge Broderick ordered defendants to address pending dismissal motions after plaintiffs amended their complaint.
The plaintiffs and all defendants in the case, because the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss remained unresolved and the court required the defendants to state how those motions should be handled.
What happened
In Jane Doe 1 v. Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint while the defendants’ motions to dismiss were pending.
The court explained that, after a complaint is properly amended, it may either treat the pending motions as no longer effective or evaluate them using the amended complaint’s allegations.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered all defendants to file a letter within seven days stating which approach they preferred: treating the motions as moot while allowing new motions to be filed, or having the court evaluate the existing motions based on the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Doe 1 v. Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary · No. 1:21-cv-06865
- Denise Cote
- Apr. 18, 2022
Background
On April 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The defendants had already filed motions to dismiss, and those motions were still pending.
Court’s Analysis
The court cited Second Circuit precedent stating that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, the district court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate the motion using the allegations in the amended complaint.
Order
The court ordered all defendants to file a letter within seven days stating whether they wanted the pending motions to dismiss treated as moot, without prejudice to filing new motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), or whether they wanted the court to evaluate the existing motions in light of the amended complaint. The order did not itself grant or deny the motions to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.