Carrier et al v. Navika Capital Group, LLC et al
ORDER finding as moot 16 Motion to Dismiss in light of the amended complaint and removal of plaintiff Markeisha Stokes. Markeisha Stokes' Notice of Dismissal (doc. 20) is moot.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 3/12/2015. (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TERESA CARRIER, et al.,
NAVIKA CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00311-KD-C
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Doc. 21) and Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal of Markeisha Stokes (Doc. 20).
Additionally, currently pending is
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 16), which is impacted by Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
The Complaint was filed on July 8, 2014.
On September 23, 2014, the Court
ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as to why service of process had not been effected on the
On October 1, 2014, Plaintiffs responded, explaining that they were
awaiting a waiver of service from opposing counsel.
On November 25, 2014, Plaintiffs
sought, and obtained, a 30 day extension within which to serve the Defendants.
(Docs. 7, 8).
Complaint was served on Defendants Navika and Shah on January 7, 2015, and on Silverstone on
January 28, 2015.
(Docs. 12, 13, 19).
On January 28, 2015, all of the Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint citing, in part, untimely service of process.
On February 20,
2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (Doc. 21) and Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of
Markeisha Stokes (Doc. 20).
Plaintiffs did not seek leave of Court to amend the complaint, and were not required to do so.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) applies to amendments before trial, and provides in
relevant part as follows:
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of
course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a
responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days
after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. Rule 15(a)(1) (emphasis added).
Additionally, Rule 6 provides that for computing
any time period specified in the rules, when the period is stated in days, the day of the event that
triggers the period is excluded (Rule 6a)(1)(A)), and that “[w]hen a party may or must act within a
specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are
added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)” (Rule 6(d)).
5(b)(2)(E) provides for service via electronic means if the person consented in writing to same (i.e.,
service via CM/ECF in this Court).
Concerning Rule 15(a)(1)(A), Plaintiffs’ February 20, 2015 amended complaint cannot be
construed as having been filed under same -- once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving it –
as to Defendants Navika and Shah.
Those defendants were served on January 7, 2015, and so
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint would have been due by the end of January 2015.
Defendant Silverstone was served on January 28, 2015 and so Plaintiffs’ amended complaint would
be timely as to that defendant under this sub-section.
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint can be construed as having been filed under
Rule 15(a)(1)(B), as the original complaint was a pleading to which a responsive pleading was
required and Defendants filed a Rule 12(b) motion in response.
Under the rules, three (3) days are
added to Rule 15(a)(1)(B)’s 21 day time period, giving Plaintiffs 24 days from the day after
Defendants’ January 28, 2015 motion was filed (the triggering day is excluded under the rules)
within which to file an amended complaint as a matter of course – Saturday, February 21, 2015.
Because Rule 6(a)(1)(C) provides that the last day cannot be a Saturday or Sunday, “the period
continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday” –
Monday February 24, 2015.
Thus, Plaintiffs had until February 24, 2015 within which to amend the
complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B).
Plaintiffs’ February 20, 2015 amended
complaint is accordingly timely and properly filed as a matter of course.1
Turning to the substance of the amended complaint, it does not merely remove Markeisha
Stokes as a plaintiff.
Rather, the amended complaint also adds more specific allegations for each
plaintiff against the defendants (Doc. 21 at 6-20 at ¶¶22, 24, 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 42, 55, 58,
61, 64), changes an address for a defendant (id. at 5 at ¶20), and removes reference to certain
statutory provisions (id. at 2, 22 at ¶¶2, 62).
In light of the amended complaint, which changes the
substantive allegations against the Defendants as well as removes plaintiff Markeisha Stokes from
this case, the motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) is MOOT.
Further, because amendment of the complaint -- not dismissal -- is the proper vehicle when a
plaintiff seeks to dismiss less than all parties and/or less than all claims,2 and Plaintiffs have
simultaneously filed an amended complaint, Plaintiff Markeisha Stokes’ Notice of Dismissal (Doc.
20) is MOOT.
DONE and ORDERED this the 12th day of March 2015.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Further, “[t]he thrust of Rule 15(a) is to allow parties to have their claims heard on the merits, and
accordingly, district courts should liberally grant leave to amend when “the underlying facts or circumstances relied
upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In re Engle
Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1109 (11th Cir. 2014).
2 Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to dismiss “an action” – i.e., all of its claims, but “its text does not permit
plaintiffs to pick and choose, dismissing only particular claims within an action…” Klay v. United Healthgroup,
Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004). Accord Campbell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 605 F.3d 839, 841 n.1 (11th
Cir. 2010); IberiaBank v. Coconut 41, LLC, 984 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (“In the Eleventh
Circuit…a plaintiff can only seek to dismiss its entire action and cannot pick and choose which claims are to be
dismissed”). In order for a plaintiff to “eliminate particular claims or issues from the action” it “should amend the
complaint under Rule 15(a) rather than dismiss under Rule 41(a).” Klay, 376 F. 3d at 1106.
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?