Shepard-Salgado v. Tyndall Federal Credit Union et al
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
MANDRELLA C. SHEPARD-SALGADO,
TYNDALL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Civil Action: 11-00427-B
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
Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31).
conference was conducted on September 1, 2011, with counsel for
Corporation, Capital One Auto Finance, Tyndall Credit Union, and
USSAA FSB, participating by telephone.
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
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).
Thus, the pending
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.
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.
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
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
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?