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)

Download PDF
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

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?