Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. NewCo Capital Group, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-00442
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kalamata Capital Group v. NewCo Capital Group, Judge Vyskocil dismissed Kalamata’s moot counterclaim motion without prejudice, denied a pre-motion conference, and allowed Gurvitsch to move to dismiss.
Kalamata Capital Group, LLC, the defendants asserting counterclaims, and Defendant Gurvitsch. The order addressed which pleadings and motions remained operative; it did not decide the merits of the counterclaims or the claims against Gurvitsch.
What happened
In Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. NewCo Capital Group, LLC, Kalamata had moved to dismiss counterclaims in the defendants’ original answer. After Kalamata filed an amended complaint, the defendants filed a new answer that repeated the earlier counterclaims and added three more.
Because the amended complaint replaced the original complaint, the defendants’ original answer also no longer had legal effect. The court therefore dismissed Kalamata’s pending motion as moot and without prejudice. The court said Kalamata could file a new motion addressing the counterclaims in the answer to the amended complaint by February 2, 2024.
The court denied the defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference but granted Defendant Gurvitsch leave to file a motion to dismiss the claims against him by February 2, 2024. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also directed the Clerk to terminate several docket entries.
The detailed version
- Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. NewCo Capital Group, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00442
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 12, 2024
Background
Kalamata Capital Group, LLC filed the action on January 1, 2023. The defendants answered and asserted three counterclaims. With the court’s permission, Kalamata moved to dismiss those counterclaims.
Kalamata later moved for permission to file an amended complaint, and the court granted that request. Kalamata then filed the amended complaint. The defendants responded with an answer that reasserted the original three counterclaims and added three new counterclaims. Separately, the defendants requested a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion by Defendant Gurvitsch to dismiss the claims against him.
Kalamata’s Motion to Dismiss the Original Counterclaims
The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and becomes the operative complaint. Because the original answer responded to the now-superseded original complaint, it likewise no longer had legal effect. The answer to the amended complaint superseded the original answer, which was the pleading targeted by Kalamata’s pending motion.
The court therefore ordered that Kalamata’s pending motion to dismiss the counterclaims in the original answer was moot and dismissed it without prejudice. The court stated that, if Kalamata wished to challenge the counterclaims in the answer to the amended complaint, it had to file a new motion by February 2, 2024. Further briefing was to follow the schedule in Local Rule 6.1(b).
Request Concerning Gurvitsch’s Anticipated Motion
The court denied the defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference. However, it granted Defendant Gurvitsch leave to file a motion to dismiss the claims against him. The court required that motion to be filed by February 2, 2024, with further briefing under Local Rule 6.1(b).
Disposition
The court dismissed without prejudice Kalamata’s pending motion to dismiss the counterclaims in the original answer, denied the request for a pre-motion conference, and granted Gurvitsch leave to file a motion to dismiss. The Clerk was requested to terminate Docket Entry Nos. 28, 34, and 68. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.