Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery, P.C. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group

S.D. New York

Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery, P.C. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 10, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-05407·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED . □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ pOC#: DATE FILED: ___!1/10/2020 PARK AVENUE ORAL AND FACIAL : SURGERY, P.C., : Plaintiff, : 20-CV-5407 (VSB) -against- : ORDER THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES _: GROUP, et al., : Defendants. :

wane eK VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). “[W]hen a plaintiff properly amends [a] complaint after a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss that 1s 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 Defendants shall file a letter within seven (7) days deciding whether its motion to dismiss should be deemed moot without prejudice to refile a new motion to dismiss in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), or if I should evaluate Defendants’ current motion to dismiss in light of the facts alleged in the amended complaint. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 10, 2020 New York, New York if J f 3. Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED . □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ pOC#: DATE FILED: ___!1/10/2020 PARK AVENUE ORAL AND FACIAL : SURGERY, P.C., : Plaintiff, : 20-CV-5407 (VSB) -against- : ORDER THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES _: GROUP, et al., : Defendants. :

wane eK VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). “[W]hen a plaintiff properly amends [a] complaint after a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss that 1s 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 Defendants shall file a letter within seven (7) days deciding whether its motion to dismiss should be deemed moot without prejudice to refile a new motion to dismiss in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), or if I should evaluate Defendants’ current motion to dismiss in light of the facts alleged in the amended complaint. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 10, 2020 New York, New York if J f 3. Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery, P.C. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery, P.C. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group (Park Avenue Oral and Facial Surgery, P.C. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related