Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, Judge Broderick ordered the defendant to state whether its pending dismissal motion should be treated as moot or evaluated.
High Brew Coffee, Inc. was ordered to file a letter stating how it wanted the court to handle its pending motion to dismiss. The order also affected Jose Mejia because the court had to determine how his amended complaint would relate to that motion.
What happened
In Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, Jose Mejia filed an amended complaint while High Brew Coffee, Inc.’s motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court explained that it could either treat the pending motion as moot, allowing the defendant to file a new motion under the federal civil-procedure rules, or evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.
The court ordered High Brew Coffee, Inc. to file a letter by October 21, 2022 stating which approach it wanted. Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
The detailed version
- Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03667
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
Jose Mejia filed an amended complaint on August 11, 2022 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). High Brew Coffee, Inc. had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion remained pending.
Court’s Action
The court stated 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 it based on the allegations in the amended complaint. The court ordered High Brew Coffee, Inc. to file a letter by October 21, 2022 indicating whether it wanted the pending motion to 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.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not address the merits of the claims. It only required the defendant to state which procedural approach the court should take.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.