Roddey v. KPMG L.L.P.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-07405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Roddey v. KPMG, Judge Broderick ordered defendants to state whether the pending dismissal motion should be treated as moot after amendment.
Coretta Roddey and the defendants. The defendants were required to file a letter stating how they wanted the court to handle their pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Roddey v. KPMG, Coretta Roddey filed an amended complaint on December 6, 2022, while defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court ordered defendants to file a letter by December 14, 2022, stating whether the pending 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 Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss or determine whether it was moot. He issued an order requiring defendants to identify how they wanted the court to proceed.
The detailed version
- Roddey v. KPMG L.L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-07405
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
On December 6, 2022, Coretta Roddey filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion was still pending.
Court’s Action
The court explained 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 it based on the allegations in the amended complaint.
The court ordered defendants to file a letter by December 14, 2022. The letter had to state whether defendants wanted the pending motion to dismiss treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), or whether they wanted the court to evaluate the current motion using the amended complaint.
Result
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss, determine whether it was moot, or rule on the amended complaint. The order only required defendants to state how they wanted the court to proceed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.