Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 2, 2022

Dicks v. Baby Banz, Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:22-cv-07827
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Dicks v. Baby Banz, Judge Broderick ordered the defendant to choose how to proceed with its pending dismissal motion.

Who this affects

Victoria Dicks and Baby Banz, Inc.; the order specifically requires Baby Banz, Inc. to file a letter within seven days.

What happened

In Dicks v. Baby Banz, Inc., Victoria Dicks filed an amended complaint on November 30, 2022, while Baby Banz’s motion to dismiss was still pending.

The court gave Baby Banz seven days to state whether it wanted the pending motion treated as no longer active, with permission to file a new motion under the federal civil-procedure rules, or whether the court should consider the existing motion based on the amended complaint.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order. Instead, he ordered Baby Banz to file a letter explaining which option it chose.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Dicks v. Baby Banz, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07827
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Dec. 2, 2022

Background

Victoria Dicks filed an amended complaint on November 30, 2022, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Baby Banz, Inc. had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion remained pending.

Order

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 it using the allegations in the amended complaint.

The court ordered Baby Banz, Inc. to file a letter within seven days choosing between two options: asking that its current motion to dismiss be treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or asking the court to evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint.

Disposition

This order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the claims. It directed the defendant to state how it wanted the court to proceed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.