Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC

S.D. New York

Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC

DecidedFebruary 13, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-08023

StatusUnknown

This text of Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC (Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAZZLING DIAM LLC, Plaintiff, 24-cv-8023 (ALC) -against- ORDER GARFIELD REFINING, LLC Defendant. ANDREW L. CARTER, United States District Judge: On January 6, 2025, Defendant filed its initial Motion to Compel Arbitration and Alternative Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 15. On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file a response to Defendant’s motion and, the next day, filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. ECF No. 19, 20. On January 30, 2025, Defendant requested a premotion conference regarding its anticipated filing of a renewed motion given Plaintiff’s filing of the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 22. On February 2, 2025, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s letter. ECF No. 23. On February 7, 2025 Plaintiff filed its opposition to Defendant’s motion. ECF No. 24. On February 11, 2025, Defendant filed a consent letter motion asking for an extension of time to file its reply to Plaintiff’s opposition ECF No. 26. Because Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint and Defendant anticipates filing a renewed motion in connection with the Amended Complaint, Defendant’s initial motion at ECF No. 15 is DENIED as moot. Roller Bearing Co. of Am., Inc. v. Am. Software, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 2d 376, 384 (D. Conn. 2008) (“[A]n amended complaint filed ‘as a matter of course’ pursuant to Rule 15(a) renders moot a motion to dismiss directed at the original complaint.”) (citing Chodos v. F.B.I., 559 F. Supp. 69, 70 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd, 697 F.2d 289 (2d Cir. Additionally, Defendant’s request for a premotion conference (ECF No. 22) and consent letter motion for an extension to file its reply to its initial motion (ECF No. 26) are DENIED. The Court GRANTS Defendant leave to file a renewed motion and the Parties are ORDERED to adhere to the following briefing schedule: Opening: March 6, 2025 Opposition: March 20, 2025 Reply: March 27, 2025 The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 15, 22, 26. SO ORDERED. [Arado 7 (as Dated: February 13, 2025 +> New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAZZLING DIAM LLC, Plaintiff, 24-cv-8023 (ALC) -against- ORDER GARFIELD REFINING, LLC Defendant. ANDREW L. CARTER, United States District Judge: On January 6, 2025, Defendant filed its initial Motion to Compel Arbitration and Alternative Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 15. On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file a response to Defendant’s motion and, the next day, filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. ECF No. 19, 20. On January 30, 2025, Defendant requested a premotion conference regarding its anticipated filing of a renewed motion given Plaintiff’s filing of the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 22. On February 2, 2025, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s letter. ECF No. 23. On February 7, 2025 Plaintiff filed its opposition to Defendant’s motion. ECF No. 24. On February 11, 2025, Defendant filed a consent letter motion asking for an extension of time to file its reply to Plaintiff’s opposition ECF No. 26. Because Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint and Defendant anticipates filing a renewed motion in connection with the Amended Complaint, Defendant’s initial motion at ECF No. 15 is DENIED as moot. Roller Bearing Co. of Am., Inc. v. Am. Software, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 2d 376, 384 (D. Conn. 2008) (“[A]n amended complaint filed ‘as a matter of course’ pursuant to Rule 15(a) renders moot a motion to dismiss directed at the original complaint.”) (citing Chodos v. F.B.I., 559 F. Supp. 69, 70 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd, 697 F.2d 289 (2d Cir. Additionally, Defendant’s request for a premotion conference (ECF No. 22) and consent letter motion for an extension to file its reply to its initial motion (ECF No. 26) are DENIED. The Court GRANTS Defendant leave to file a renewed motion and the Parties are ORDERED to adhere to the following briefing schedule: Opening: March 6, 2025 Opposition: March 20, 2025 Reply: March 27, 2025 The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 15, 22, 26. SO ORDERED. [Arado 7 (as Dated: February 13, 2025 +> New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dazzling Diam LLC v. Garfield Refining, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dazzling-diam-llc-v-garfield-refining-llc-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack