BFF II PTE. LTD. et al v. ROSEN et al

Filing 25

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 13 ) IS DENIED AS MOOT, PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DETERMINATION AND MOTION FOR RETROACTIVE LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NOS. 17 , 21 ) ARE GRANTED, AND PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 15 ) IS DEEMED PROPERLY FILED. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE KELLEY BRISBON HODGE ON 1/7/25. 1/7/25 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BFF II PTE. LTD.,
SIDE DOOR VENTURES, LP,
SDV OPPORTUNTY FUND II, and
SDV FOLLOW 1G
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 24-1228

v.
MATTHEW ROSEN,
Defendant.
ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Matthew
Rosen’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (the “Motion to
Dismiss”) (ECF No. 13), Plaintiffs BFF II PTE. LTD., SDV Follow 1G, SDV Opportunity Fund
II, and Side Door Ventures, LP’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion (A) Requesting the Court to Determine
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was Mooted by the Second Amended Complaint; or (B) For
Authority to File a Response to the Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion for Determination”) (ECF
No. 17), and Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting Retroactive Authority to File Second Amended
Complaint to the Extent Authorization is Needed Under Rule 15 (the “Motion for Retroactive
Leave to Amend”) (ECF No. 21), and any responses and oppositions thereto, it is ORDERED
that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is DENIED as MOOT, Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Determination and Motion for Retroactive Leave to Amend (ECF Nos. 17, 21) are GRANTED,
and Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15) is deemed properly filed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Kelley B. Hodge
HODGE, KELLEY B., J.