Sanchez v. The Heat Factory, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-02418
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sanchez v. The Heat Factory, Inc., Judge Broderick ordered the defendant to choose how the court should handle its pending dismissal motion.
The Heat Factory, Inc. must file a letter within seven days choosing how it wants the court to handle its pending motion to dismiss; the court’s handling of the amended complaint and motion remains unresolved.
What happened
In Sanchez v. The Heat Factory, Inc., Cristian Sanchez filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2022, while The Heat Factory, Inc.’s motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court gave the defendant two options: ask the court to treat the pending motion as moot, meaning no longer requiring a decision, while allowing a new motion to be filed; or ask the court to decide the current motion using the amended complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered The Heat Factory, Inc. to file a letter stating its choice within seven days. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. The Heat Factory, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02418
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 6, 2022
Background
On July 14, 2022, Cristian Sanchez filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The opinion states that The Heat Factory, Inc. had already filed a motion to dismiss and that the motion remained 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 deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate that motion using the allegations in the amended complaint. A motion is moot when circumstances mean the court no longer needs to decide it.
Order
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered The Heat Factory, Inc. to file a letter within seven days stating whether it wanted the pending motion to dismiss treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion in light of the amended complaint. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the claims’ merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.