Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 12, 2022

Joyner v. Appaman Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:22-cv-02226
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Joyner v. Appaman, Judge Broderick ordered Appaman to say whether its pending dismissal motion should be treated as moot or evaluated.

Who this affects

Appaman Inc. must file a letter within seven days choosing how the court should handle its pending motion to dismiss; the order also determines how Sharon Joyner’s amended complaint will be considered in relation to that motion.

What happened

In Joyner v. Appaman Inc., Sharon Joyner filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2022, while Appaman Inc.’s motion to dismiss was still pending.

The court gave Appaman Inc. two options: ask that its current motion be treated as no longer requiring a decision, while preserving the ability to file a new motion, or ask the court to evaluate the current motion using the amended complaint.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Appaman Inc. to file a letter stating its choice within seven days. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the claims’ merits.

The detailed version

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

Case
Joyner v. Appaman Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02226
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
July 12, 2022

Background

On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff Sharon Joyner filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Defendant Appaman Inc. had a motion to dismiss that was still pending.

Issue and Options

The court explained that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, the court may either treat the pending motion as moot or evaluate the motion based on the allegations in the amended complaint.

Order

The court ordered Appaman Inc. to file a letter within seven days stating whether its motion to dismiss should be treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint. The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss, the amended complaint, or the merits of the case.

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.