Smithline Family Trust II v. FOXO Technologies Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-10858
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smithline v. FOXO, Judge Caproni denied Sabes’s motion to dismiss as moot after an amended complaint was filed.
The ruling directly affected Plaintiff Smithline Family Trust II, FOXO Technologies, Inc., and Jon Sabes. Sabes had to respond to the amended complaint by March 15, 2023, and Plaintiff’s ability to amend the allegations against FOXO as a matter of right was limited.
What happened
In Smithline Family Trust II v. FOXO Technologies Inc., the plaintiff filed an amended complaint while Jon Sabes’s motion to dismiss the original complaint was pending.
The court ruled that Sabes’s motion to dismiss was no longer effective because the amended complaint replaced the original complaint. The court required Sabes to answer the amended complaint or move to dismiss it by March 15, 2023. The court also stated that the plaintiff could not amend the allegations against FOXO as a matter of right without FOXO’s consent or the court’s permission.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Sabes’s motion to dismiss as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Smithline Family Trust II v. FOXO Technologies Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10858
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 27, 2023
Background
Defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court on December 23, 2022. FOXO Technologies, Inc. answered the original complaint on December 30, 2022. Plaintiff and Jon Sabes agreed to extend Sabes’s deadline to respond, and Sabes later moved to dismiss the original complaint.
On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows a plaintiff to amend once as a matter of right within specified 21-day periods. In cases with multiple defendants, the court stated that this period applies separately to each defendant.
Ruling
The court denied Sabes’s motion to dismiss as moot because Plaintiff had filed an amended complaint. The court ordered Sabes to either answer the amended complaint or move to dismiss it by March 15, 2023.
The court also ordered that Plaintiff could not, without consent or permission from the court, amend the allegations against FOXO as a matter of right because more than 21 days had passed since FOXO answered the original complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the open motion at Docket 13.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.