Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 14, 2023

Aldabe v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:23-cv-00850
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Aldabe v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Judge Gorenstein granted amendment without deciding the merits and deemed the earlier dismissal motion withdrawn.

Who this affects

Fermin Aldabe and the defendants, including Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. The order permits the proposed second amended complaint to be filed, withdraws the pending motion to dismiss the prior complaint, and preserves the defendants’ merits arguments for a future dispositive motion.

What happened

In Aldabe v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Fermin Aldabe asked to file a proposed second amended complaint. The defendants argued that the proposed amendment would be futile.

The court granted the motion to amend and directed the Clerk’s Office to file the proposed second amended complaint. The court did not decide whether the proposed complaint had merit.

Because the new complaint was filed, the court deemed the defendants’ motion to dismiss the prior complaint withdrawn. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein stated that the defendants could preserve their arguments for a future motion addressing the merits.

The detailed version

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

Case
Aldabe v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP · No. 1:23-cv-00850
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Mar. 14, 2023

Background

Fermin Aldabe sought permission to file a proposed second amended complaint. The defendants argued that the proposed amendment would be futile. The opinion states that considering whether an amendment would be futile is discretionary when a court evaluates a motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to amend, without ruling on the merits of the proposed second amended complaint. It directed the Clerk’s Office to file the proposed complaint attached to pages 4 through 18 of Docket No. 21.

Because the new complaint was filed, the court deemed withdrawn the defendants’ motion to dismiss the prior complaint, filed at Docket No. 10. The court stated that all arguments opposing the merits of the second amended complaint were preserved for any future motion seeking a dispositive ruling. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered the order.

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.