Rankine v. Levi Strauss & Co.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Rankine v. Levi Strauss & Co.: Judge Broderick ordered Levi Strauss to choose how to proceed with its pending dismissal motion after Rankine amended his complaint.
Patrick Rankine and Levi Strauss & Co.; the order specifically required Levi Strauss & Co. to submit a letter within seven days.
What happened
In Rankine v. Levi Strauss & Co., Patrick Rankine filed an amended complaint while Levi Strauss’s motion to dismiss was still pending. The opinion says the amended complaint was filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).
The court explained that it could either treat the pending motion as no longer applicable or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint. It ordered Levi Strauss to submit a letter within seven days stating which option it wanted.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on July 29, 2022. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Rankine v. Levi Strauss & Co. · No. 1:22-cv-03362
- Laura Swain
- July 29, 2022
Background
Patrick Rankine filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2022, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Levi Strauss & Co. had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion was still pending.
Court’s analysis
The court cited the rule 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 the motion in light of the amended complaint. “Moot” means that the motion no longer requires a ruling because the amended complaint has replaced the earlier pleading.
Order
The court ordered Levi Strauss & Co. to file a letter within seven days stating whether it wanted the pending motion to dismiss deemed moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or whether the court should evaluate the current motion using the allegations in the amended complaint. The opinion does not state that the motion to dismiss was granted or denied. The order was signed by Vernon S. Broderick, United States District Judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.