Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sahiti v. Tarentum, Ltd., 19 Civ. 7377 (AT) (KNF). (2020)

Court: District Court, S.D. New York Number: infdco20200122a52 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2020
Summary: ORDER ANALISA TORRES , District Judge . Having reviewed the parties' pre-motion letters, ECF Nos. 17, 23, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. By March 2, 2020, Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss; 2. By March 23, 2020, Plaintiff shall file his opposition; and 3. By April 6, 2020, Defendants shall file their reply, if any. Defendants shall make their application for leave to file (1) a motion in limine and (2) a Local Rule 54.2 motion for a security bond to the Honorable Kev
More

ORDER

Having reviewed the parties' pre-motion letters, ECF Nos. 17, 23, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. By March 2, 2020, Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss; 2. By March 23, 2020, Plaintiff shall file his opposition; and 3. By April 6, 2020, Defendants shall file their reply, if any.

Defendants shall make their application for leave to file (1) a motion in limine and (2) a Local Rule 54.2 motion for a security bond to the Honorable Kevin Nathaniel Fox, to whom this case is now referred for non-dispositive pretrial motions.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, is DENIED as moot, in light of the subsequently-filed amended complaint, ECF No. 15. Gonzalez v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 493 F.Supp. 499, 501 (S.D.N.Y.1980) ("Since the original complaint has been superseded by the amended complaint, the motion to dismiss the original complaint has been rendered moot").

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 12 and 17.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer