Zarzuela v. Proud Source Water, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-02098
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Zarzuela v. Proud Source Water, Judge Broderick ordered the defendant to choose how to proceed with its pending motion to dismiss after an amended complaint.
Proud Source Water, Inc. must inform the court how it wants to proceed with its pending motion to dismiss; Jose Zarzuela’s amended complaint remains the pleading the court may consider.
What happened
In Zarzuela v. Proud Source Water, Inc., Jose Zarzuela filed an amended complaint on June 15, 2023, while Proud Source Water, Inc.’s motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court ordered Proud Source Water to file a letter within seven days stating whether it wanted the pending motion treated as no longer needing a decision, while preserving the ability to file a new motion, or wanted the court to evaluate the current motion using the amended complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of the case. The order only required the defendant to choose how to proceed.
The detailed version
- Zarzuela v. Proud Source Water, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02098
- Vernon Broderick
- June 16, 2023
Background
On June 15, 2023, Jose Zarzuela filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Proud Source Water, Inc. had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion was still pending.
Court’s Action
The court explained that when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it based on the allegations in the amended complaint.
The court ordered Proud Source Water to file a letter within seven days stating which option it preferred: (1) having its current motion to dismiss deemed moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3); or (2) having the court evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint.
Disposition and Scope
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the underlying claims. It required the defendant to state how it wanted to proceed with its pending motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.