Adams v. 46 N LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-01075
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Adams v. 46 N LLC, Judge Broderick allowed an amended complaint and directed defendants to state how they want to proceed with their pending dismissal motion.
Joshua Adams may file an amended complaint by January 5, 2023. 46 N LLC and Little Guilty Pleasures LLC must notify the court by January 11, 2023, how they want the pending motion to dismiss handled.
What happened
In Adams v. 46 N LLC, Joshua Adams asked to file an amended complaint. The court granted that request and required him to file the amended complaint by January 5, 2023.
A motion to dismiss filed by 46 N LLC and Little Guilty Pleasures LLC was still pending. The court explained that, after an amended complaint is filed, it may either treat the pending motion as no longer active or consider it based on the amended complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the defendants to file a letter by January 11, 2023, stating whether the motion should be treated as moot without prejudice to filing a new motion under the federal civil procedure rules, or whether the court should evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Adams v. 46 N LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01075
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 30, 2022
Background
Joshua Adams requested permission to file an amended complaint. A motion to dismiss filed by 46 N LLC and Little Guilty Pleasures LLC was pending when he made that request.
Court’s action
The court granted Adams’s request for leave to file an amended complaint. It ordered him to file the amended complaint by January 5, 2023.
The court noted that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a dismissal motion is pending, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint. The court therefore ordered the defendants to file a letter by January 11, 2023, stating whether they wanted the pending motion to be 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 existing motion in light of the amended complaint.
Result
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted leave to amend and directed the defendants to state how they wanted the pending motion to dismiss handled. The opinion did not decide the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.