Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 23, 2024

Zumedia Inc. v. IMDB.COM, Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-08472
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Zumedia Inc. v. IMDB.COM, Inc., Judge Broderick ordered IMDB.COM to tell the court how it wants to proceed with its pending dismissal motion.

Who this affects

Zumedia Inc. and IMDB.COM, Inc.; the order specifically required IMDB.COM, Inc. to file a letter about how to handle its pending motion to dismiss.

What happened

In Zumedia Inc. v. IMDB.COM, Inc., Zumedia filed an amended complaint on January 19, 2024, while IMDB.COM’s motion to dismiss was still pending.

The court ordered IMDB.COM to file a letter within seven days stating whether it wanted the pending motion treated as no longer active, allowing a new motion to be filed, or whether the court should evaluate the current motion using the amended complaint.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Zumedia Inc. v. IMDB.COM, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08472
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Jan. 23, 2024

Background

On January 19, 2024, Zumedia filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). IMDB.COM 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 remains pending, the court may either treat the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint.

The court ordered IMDB.COM to file a letter within seven days choosing between two options: asking the court to treat the current motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under the federal rules, or asking the court to evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint.

Disposition

The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of Zumedia’s claims. It required IMDB.COM to state how it wanted the court to handle the pending motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.