DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiff David Costa seeks damages for injuries he suffered when he was struck by a vehicle operated by Darling Veras, an employee of Tribeca Automotive, Inc. (“Tribeca”), on a lot subleased and operated by Defendant Glovis America, Inc. (“Glovis”). Glovis has moved to dismiss Costa’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 23.) In his response, Costa has attached a proposed Second Amended Complaint, and has asked this Court to grant him leave to amend. (Docket No. 27.) For the following reasons, this Court will deem Costa’s response a motion to amend, grant it, and deny Glovis’s motion to dismiss as against Costa’s Second Amended Complaint. As an initial matter, despite the procedural irregularities,1 this Court will construe Costa’s response as a motion to amend. (Docket No. 10.) District courts have broad discretion to grant a party leave to amend its pleadings and the federal rules dictate that courts “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(2); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962); Ellis v. Chao, 336 F.3d 114, 127 (2d Cir. 2003). “As a general matter, amendments to the pleadings are favored in order to facilitate a resolution on the merits.” Goldin Assocs., L.L.C. v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp., No. 00 CIV. 8688 (WHP), 2003 WL 22218643, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2003) (citing Black Radio Network, Inc. v. NYNEX Corp., 44 F. Supp. 2d 565, 573 (S.D.N.Y.1999)). Given the procedural posture of this case, this Court finds it most expeditious and in the interests of judicial economy to permit Costa to amend his complaint as proposed (Docket 27-7) and to assess Glovis’s Motion to Dismiss as against that pleading. Costa will therefore be directed to file his proposed Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 27-7) with the Clerk of Court as the operative pleading in this matter. Glovis’s Motion to Dismiss is resolved below. II. BACKGROUND This Court assumes the truth of the following factual allegations contained in Costa’s Second Amended Complaint. See Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740, 96 S. Ct. 1848, 48 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1976); see also Hamilton Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi, Inc. v. Hamilton Coll., 128 F.3d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 1997). On May 21, 2019, Costa, a resident of West Seneca, New York, was inspecting his trailer in the Philadelphia Port Authority Auto Processing Facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Second Amended Complaint, Docket No. 27-7, 1.) As he walked along the side of his trailer, he was struck by a vehicle operated by Defendant Veras, who was an employee or agent of Defendant Tribeca. (Id., 12.) Veras is a resident of Florida, and Tribeca is a New Jersey corporation. (Id.,
7, 3.) Glovis, a California corporation, subleased the lot where the incident occurred. (Id.,
