Roberts et al v. City of Wetumpka et al

Filing 27

ORDER: ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion (doc. 25 ) is GRANTED with the separately docketed amended complaint (doc. 26 ) serving as the operative amended complaint. It is further ORDERED that the Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 19 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 3/28/2024. (LAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
BEVERLY ROBERTS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF WETUMPKA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL CASE NO. 2:24-cv-035-ECM
(WO)

ORDER
Now pending before the Court are the Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to
file their first amended complaint (doc. 25) and the Defendants’ motion to dismiss
(doc. 19).
The Court first addresses the Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file their
first amended complaint. In contravention of Local Rule 15.1, the Plaintiffs separately
filed their proposed First Amended Complaint instead of attaching it to their motion. (See
docs. 25, 26); M.D. Ala. LR 15.1 (“A party who moves to amend a pleading, document
or other papers shall attach the original of the amendment to the motion.”). Nonetheless,
Local Rule 15.1 further states that “[a] failure to comply with this rule is not grounds for
denial of the motion.” M.D. Ala. LR 15.1. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ motion is due to be
GRANTED.
In light of the amended complaint (doc. 26), the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is
now moot. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion (doc. 25) is GRANTED with the
separately docketed amended complaint (doc. 26) serving as the operative amended
complaint. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 19) is DENIED as moot.
Done this 28th day of March, 2024.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE