Moore v. Experian
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-00673
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moore v. Experian, Judge Cave treated Moore’s amended complaint as a request to amend and ordered defendants to reply to their dismissal motion.
Erisa Moore and the defendants, particularly Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Trans Union, LLC, whose dismissal motion will be considered against the amended complaint.
What happened
In Moore v. Experian, Experian Information Solutions and Trans Union moved to dismiss Erisa Moore’s complaint. While that motion was pending, Moore filed an amended complaint.
The court treated the amended complaint as a request for permission to amend in response to the dismissal motion. It directed the defendants to file their reply by April 14, 2023, and said their existing arguments would be considered against the amended complaint.
Judge Sarah L. Cave did not decide the dismissal motion or the merits of Moore’s claims in this order. She said the court would issue a report and recommendation later.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Experian · No. 1:23-cv-00673
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Trans Union, LLC filed a motion to dismiss Erisa Moore’s complaint. The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for a report and recommendation. While the motion was pending, Moore filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2023.
Court’s action
The court treated Moore’s amended complaint as a request for permission to amend the original complaint in response to the motion to dismiss. The court explained that, when an amended complaint is filed while a dismissal motion is pending, it may either deny the motion as no longer applicable or consider the motion using the allegations in the amended complaint. Here, the court chose to consider the existing motion as directed to the amended complaint.
The court ordered the defendants to file their reply supporting the motion by Friday, April 14, 2023. It also stated that it would treat the arguments in the motion as addressing Moore’s allegations in the amended complaint and would issue a report and recommendation later. This order did not decide whether Moore’s claims could proceed.
Classification and effect
This is a procedural order because it addresses the handling and schedule of a pending motion to dismiss without deciding the merits. The order affected Moore and the defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Trans Union, LLC. Although Equifax is listed as a defendant in the caption, this order identifies only Experian Information Solutions and Trans Union as having filed the motion.
Judge information
The opinion text identifies and signs Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.