Sidoli v. Youtube, LLC

W | L S O N Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation S O N S | N | 1301 Avenue of the Americas 40th Floor New York, New York 10019-6022 0: 212.999.5800 F: 866.974.7329 Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's comple Internet: BMARGO@car-com hereby denied as moot. Defendants! motion to dism amended complaint is due May 22, 2025; ple opposition is due June 19, 2025: and defendants' reply May 13, 2025 June 26, 2025. The Clerk of Court is respectfully d to terminate the motion at Dkt 26.

Via CM/ECE SO ORDERED.

The Honorable Arun Subramanian ( United States District Court Southern District of New York Arun Subramanian, U.S.D.J.

500 Pearl Street, Room 250 Date: May 15, 2025 New York, NY 10007 Re: Sidoliv. YouTube, LLC, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01586-AS-SN (S.D.N.Y.) Your Honor: On behalf of Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC (collectively, “YouTube’”), I write to seek clarification regarding the Court’s preferred procedure for addressing Plaintiff Nataliya Sidoli’s Amended Complaint. ECF No. 33.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on February 25, 2025. ECF No. 1. YouTube filed its Motion to Transfer, or in the alternative, Motion to Dismiss, on April 28. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff filed an objection on May 6 (ECF No. 31), another objection totaling 97-pages on May 8 (ECF No. 32), and an Amended Complaint on the same day (ECF No. 33). The substance of the Amended Complaint is the same as the original Complaint, except that Plaintiff adds conclusory and implausible assertions to the effect that YouTube removed her channel at the “request[] of the government of Pakistan.” ECF No. 33 at 2.

Plaintiff is entitled to file one Amended Complaint as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). If the Court does not say otherwise, YouTube will treat the original complaint as superseded and the original motion to dismiss as moot. YouTube’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint will then be due on May 22. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).

However, when an amended pleading is filed, the Court has discretion to “either deny a pending motion to dismiss as moot or consider the merits of the motion, analyzing the facts as alleged in the amended pleading.” Pettaway v. Nat’] Recovery Sols., LLC, 955 F.3d 299, 303 (2d Cir. 2020). YouTube would not object if the Court wishes to rule on its existing motion to transfer or dismiss. See ECF No. 26. This would not be difficult, given the substantial similarity between the original and amended complaints. Ruling on the already-pending motion would “promote[] AUSTIN BOSTON BOULDER BRUSSELS. HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAITIAKE CITY SAN NICD CAN FRANCISCN CrATTIIE SUAAIGHAI WASHINGTON. Nc WILMINGTON. NEF WILSON SONSINI The Honorable Arun Subramanian United States District Court Southern District of New York May 13, 2025 Page 2 judicial economy by obviating the need for multiple rounds of briefing addressing complaints that are legally insufficient.” Jd.

If the Court does exercise its discretion to rule on the pending motion, YouTube would ask for leave to file a reply in further support of its motion within two weeks of the Court’s order.

Respectfully submitted, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation /s/ Benjamin D. Margo Attorneys for Defendants YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC