Lee v. Riverbay Corporation
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07504
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Lee v. Riverbay Corporation: Judge Broderick ordered defendants to state whether their pending dismissal motion should be treated as moot after Lee amended his complaint.
James Lee and the defendants—Riverbay Corporation; Residential Management Group, LLC d/b/a Douglas Elliman Property Management; Noel Ellison; Warren Mitchell; Inelle Cooper; and Robert Klehammer—were affected by the order concerning the pending motion to dismiss and amended complaint.
What happened
In Lee v. Riverbay Corporation, James Lee filed an amended complaint while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court ordered the defendants to submit a letter by December 6, 2022, saying whether the motion should be treated as moot, allowing a new motion to be filed, or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.
Judge Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Riverbay Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-07504
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 30, 2022
Background
James Lee filed an amended complaint on November 28, 2022, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The defendants had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion was still pending.
Court’s Order
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 it using the allegations in the amended complaint.
The court ordered the defendants to file a letter by December 6, 2022, stating which approach they wanted: having the current motion treated 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.
Result
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the claims’ merits. It required the defendants to state how they wanted the court to handle the pending motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.