Brian Byrne, individually and as representative of classes of similarly situated participants in the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA) Code Section 401(k) Plan and the TIAA Retirement Plan v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA), et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: September 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-04228
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X : BRIAN BYRNE, individually and as : representative of classes of similarly situated : participants in the TEACHERS INSURANCE : AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF : AMERICA (TIAA) CODE SECTION 401(k) : PLAN and the TIAA RETIREMENT PLAN, : 25-CV-4228 (VSB) : Plaintiff, : ORDER : -against- : : TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY : ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (TIAA), et : al., : : Defendant. : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on May 20, 2025. (Doc. 1 (“Complaint”).) On August 13, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. 22.) On September 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). (Doc. 36 (“Amended Complaint”).) In accordance with my September 9, 2025 Order granting the parties’ proposed schedule related to Defendants’ forthcoming response to the Amended Complaint, Defendants’ response to the Amended Complaint is due by October 14, 2025. (Doc. 38.) Defendants have requested that I deny as moot the previously filed motion to dismiss without prejudice to refile a new motion addressed to the Amended Complaint, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3) and the briefing schedule I ordered. (Doc. 40.) “[W]hen a plaintiff properly amends [a] complaint after a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss that is still pending, the district court has the option of either denying the pending motion as moot or evaluating the motion in light of the facts alleged in the amended complaint.” Pettaway v. Nat’l Recovery Sols., LLC, 955 F.3d 299, 303-04 (2d Cir. 2020). Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that in light of Defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and Defendants’ request to deny their previous motion to dismiss the Complaint as moot, Defendant’s August 13, 2025 motion to dismiss the Complaint is denied as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Doc. 22. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 19, 2025 New York, New York

Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge