Nolau v. WSP USA Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-04276
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Nolau v. WSP USA Inc., Judge Broderick ordered Defendant to say whether its pending dismissal motion should be treated as moot.
Michael Nolau and the Defendant, because the order determines how the pending motion to dismiss will be handled after the amended complaint.
What happened
In Nolau v. WSP USA Inc., Michael Nolau filed an amended complaint after an earlier court order. The Defendant had already filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case.
The court explained that it could either treat the pending motion as no longer active or consider it under the amended complaint. It did not decide the motion in this order.
Judge Broderick ordered the Defendant to file a letter by June 16 stating which option it wanted: treating the current motion as moot while allowing a new motion under the federal rules, or having the court evaluate the current motion based on the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Nolau v. WSP USA Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04276
- Vernon Broderick
- June 9, 2023
Background
Michael Nolau filed an amended complaint pursuant to an earlier order identified as Doc. 29. The Defendant had a pending motion to dismiss. The opinion does not state the date on which the amended complaint was filed.
Court’s Action
The court cited Second Circuit precedent explaining that, when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss remains pending, the district court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint.
The court ordered the Defendant to file a letter by June 16 stating whether the pending motion to dismiss should be treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), or whether the court should evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint. The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.