Vaughn v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

S.D. New York

Vaughn v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 8, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-03221·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PARNELL D. VAUGHN, : Plaintiff, : : 22-CV-3221 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, : et al., : Defendants. :

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On June 6, 2022, pro se Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). (Doc. 16.)' “{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 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: June 8, 2022 Nunes Bader By New York, New York Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

' The amended complaint was received by the Pro Se Office on June 6, 2022 and docketed on June 7, 2022.

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

PARNELL D. VAUGHN, : Plaintiff, : : 22-CV-3221 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, : et al., : Defendants. :

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On June 6, 2022, pro se Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). (Doc. 16.)' “{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 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: June 8, 2022 Nunes Bader By New York, New York Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

' The amended complaint was received by the Pro Se Office on June 6, 2022 and docketed on June 7, 2022.

Vaughn v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Vaughn v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (Vaughn v. Metropolitan Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related