Pessin v. JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Executive
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-02436
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pessin v. JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Executive, Judge Broderick ordered defendants to choose how to proceed with their pending dismissal motion after Pessin amended his complaint.
Joseph Pessin and the defendants, including JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Executive, were affected: Pessin’s amended complaint changed the circumstances surrounding the pending motion to dismiss, and defendants were ordered to state how they wanted the motion handled.
What happened
In Pessin v. JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Executive, Joseph Pessin filed an amended complaint while defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court ordered defendants to file a letter within seven days stating whether they wanted the pending motion treated as moot, allowing them to file a new motion, or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion under the amended complaint.
Judge Broderick’s order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of Pessin’s claims; it directed defendants to choose how the motion should proceed.
The detailed version
- Pessin v. JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Executive · No. 1:22-cv-02436
- Denise Cote
- July 26, 2022
Background
On July 25, 2022, Joseph Pessin filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants had a motion to dismiss pending.
Order
The court explained that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss remains pending, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint. The court ordered defendants to file a letter within seven days stating which option they preferred: treating the current motion as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or having the court evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint.
Disposition and effect
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the claims. It directed defendants to state how they wanted the pending motion handled.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.