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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?