Espinosa v. RGB Management Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-04050
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Espinosa v. RGB Management Corp., Judge Broderick ordered a response about a pending motion and denied it as moot after claims against Union Defendants were withdrawn.
Ramon Espinosa, RGB Management Corp. d/b/a Morton Williams, Carlos Martinez, Local 338 RWDSU/UFCW, and Cathy Pimentel. The Union Defendants were dismissed after Espinosa withdrew his claims against them; the pending motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
What happened
In Espinosa v. RGB Management Corp., Ramon Espinosa filed an amended complaint while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending. The amended complaint was filed under the federal rule allowing one amendment without court permission in certain circumstances.
The court ordered the defendants to file a letter within seven days stating whether their pending motion should be treated as moot, allowing them to file a new motion, or evaluated under the amended complaint. Espinosa withdrew his claims against Local 338 RWDSU/UFCW and Cathy Pimentel.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed the Union Defendants from the action and denied the pending motion to dismiss, listed at Doc. 12, as moot. The clerk was directed to terminate that motion.
The detailed version
- Espinosa v. RGB Management Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-04050
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 25, 2023
Background
On October 24, 2023, Ramon Espinosa filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), while a motion to dismiss was pending. The opinion explains that, when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint during that period, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint.
Order
The court ordered the defendants to file a letter within seven days stating whether they wanted the current motion to dismiss treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Rule 15(a)(3), or wanted the court to evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint.
Espinosa withdrew his claims against Local 338 RWDSU/UFCW and Cathy Pimentel, referred to in the opinion as the Union Defendants. The court dismissed the Union Defendants from the action and denied the motion to dismiss pending at Doc. 12 as moot. The clerk was directed to terminate that motion.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed the effect of the amended complaint and the withdrawal of claims against the Union Defendants. It did not decide the merits of the claims or the pending motion to dismiss. Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the remaining defendants to state how they wanted to proceed with the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.