Shepard-Salgado v. Tyndall Federal Credit Union et al

Filing 32

ORDER terminating 31 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; finding as moot 6 Motion to Dismiss; granting 8 Motion to Stay the parties Rule 26(f) meeting and report; finding as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss; granting 12 Motion t o Stay the parties Rule 26(f) meeting and report until after a ruling on any newly filed motions to dismiss; finding as moot 15 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant are directed to file their answer or response to Plaintiff's amended complaint by 9/16/11; plaintiff shall file a separate response to any motions to dismiss by 10/7/11; any reply by defendants by 10/17/11. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 9/1/2011. (srr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MANDRELLA C. SHEPARD-SALGADO,

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Plaintiff,
vs.
TYNDALL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action: 11-00427-B

ORDER
The

action

is

before

the

Court

on

Defendants

Santander

Consumer USA, Inc. and Americredit Financial Services, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay (Docs. 6, 8), Defendant
Chase Auto Finance Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Stay (Docs. 11, 12), Defendant Capital One Auto Finance’s Motion
to

Dismiss

(Doc.

15)1,

and

Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31).

Omnibus
A status

conference was conducted on September 1, 2011, with counsel for
Plaintiff,
Americredit

and

Defendants

Financial

Santander

Services,

Inc.,

Consumer
Chase

USA,
Auto

Inc.,
Finance

Corporation, Capital One Auto Finance, Tyndall Credit Union, and
USSAA FSB, participating by telephone.
1

Defendant Tyndall Federal Credit Union joined in the
above-referenced motions of the co-Defendants. (Docs. 27, 28).

In Plaintiff’s motion, she asserts that because she has
filed an amended complaint, her original complaint is “no longer
in play” and that the Court should issue a briefing schedule for
new motions to dismiss. Plaintiff also requests permission to
file a single “omnibus response” addressing any such motions
filed by Defendants.

At the status conference conducted on

September 1, 2011, no issues regarding Plaintiff’s right to file
the

amended

complaint

were

raised;

however,

counsel

for

Defendants advised that they each anticipate filing new motions
seeking the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. In this
case, there is no issue concerning Plaintiff's right to file an
amended complaint. Because Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint
within twenty-one days following service of Defendants’ Motions
to Dismiss, she was entitled under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to amend once as a matter of right.
Further, an amended complaint normally supersedes the original
complaint. Pacific Bell Tel Co. v. Linkline Comm. Inc., 555 U.S. 438,
n.4, 129 S. Ct. 1109, 172 L. Ed. 2d 836 (2009).

motions

to

dismiss,

which

address

the

Thus, the pending
sufficiency

of

the

original Complaint, will be treated as moot, and Defendants are
directed to file their answer or other response to Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint by September 16, 2011.

2

Plaintiff shall file a

separate response to any motions to dismiss by October 7, 20112.
Any reply by Defendants shall be filed by October 17, 2011.
Additionally,

the

undersigned

finds,

based

on

a

careful

review of the record, that it is in the best interest of the
parties and judicial economy, to delay the parties’ Rule 26(f)
planning meeting and report until after a ruling on any newly
filed motions to dismiss.

Accordingly, Defendants’ request to

delay the parties’ Rule 26(f) meeting and report is granted.
Ordered this 1st day of September, 2011.

/s/ Sonja F. Bivins_______
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Plaintiff’s request to file a single response is denied.
The undersigned finds that a single response could be
potentially confusing given the number of Defendants involved in
this case, and that fact that most are represented by separate
counsel.

3