Samuel Kauffman v. City of Philadelphia, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SAMUEL KAUFFMAN, CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, NO. 25-6806-KSM v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of April, 2026, upon consideration of Defendant City of Philadelphia’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 22) and Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. No. 26) it is ORDERED that the City of Philadelphia’s motion (Doc. No. 22) is GRANTED in part. Count Two of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 33)1 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for leave to further amend (Doc. No. 26 at 2) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint consistent with the Court’s contemporaneously filed Memorandum no later than April 28, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED.

_/s/ Karen Spencer Marston_______ KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.

1 As detailed in the Court’s accompanying Memorandum, the Second Amended Complaint was filed after the parties’ briefing but contains no substantive factual changes that mooted the underlying legal arguments in the parties’ prior briefing. See MSA Prods., Inc. v. Nifty Home Prods., Inc., 883 F. Supp. 2d 535, 539 n.1 (D.N.J. 2012) (discussing how an amended complaint does not necessarily moot a prior filed motion to dismiss).