Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 22, 2022

Paguada v. Home Training Tools, LTD.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:22-cv-00919
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Paguada v. Home Training Tools, Judge Broderick ordered the defendant to choose how to respond to the amended complaint.

Who this affects

The defendant was required to choose how to respond to the plaintiff’s amended complaint; the order did not decide the merits of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

What happened

In Paguada v. Home Training Tools, the defendant had asked the court to dismiss the original complaint, but the plaintiff filed an amended complaint while that request was still pending.

The court gave the defendant until May 13, 2022, to either ask the court to consider the existing dismissal request against the amended complaint or file an answer or a new dismissal request directed specifically at the amended complaint.

Judge Broderick did not decide the pending dismissal request in this order; he directed the defendant to identify how it wanted to proceed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Paguada v. Home Training Tools, LTD. · No. 1:22-cv-00919
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 22, 2022

Background

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint on April 1, 2022. On April 21, 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

Court’s Order

Because the plaintiff amended the operative complaint while the dismissal motion was still pending, the court stated that it could either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint. The court ordered the defendant, by May 13, 2022, to do one of two things: file a letter stating that it wanted the court to consider the pending motion to dismiss as directed at the amended complaint, or file an answer or a motion to dismiss specifically responding to the amended complaint.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss in this order. The order required the defendant to state how it would respond to the amended complaint.

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.