Dunn et al v. Phoenix West II, LLC et al
ORDER finding as moot 11 , 12 , 21 Motions to Dismiss; plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 7/31/2015. (srr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
AMANDA NORTHRUP and
PHOENIX WEST II, LLC,
PHOENIX WEST II OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., and
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00258-N
The Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint (Doc. 33) against all
Defendants. The amended pleading, filed and served July 30, 2015, is timely and
properly filed without leave of court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1)(B) (permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint “once as a matter of
course within … 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”).1
“As a general matter, ‘[a]n amended pleading supersedes the former pleading;
the original pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the
pleader's averments against his adversary.’ ”
Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous.
Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Dresdner Bank
AG, Dresdner Bank AG in Hamburg v. M/V OLYMPIA VOYAGER, 463 F.3d 1210,
1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted)).
See also, e.g., Fritz v.
Defendants Phoenix West II, LLC and Brett/Robinson Gulf Corporation filed and served
Rule 12(b) motions on July 9, 2015. (Docs. 11, 12). Defendant Phoenix West Owners
Association, Inc. filed a Rule 12(b) motion on July 23, 2015. (Doc. 21).
Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982)
(“Under the Federal Rules, an amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint.”). Thus, it is ORDERED that the Defendants’ motions to dismiss the
initial complaint (Docs. 11, 12, 21) are MOOT.2
DONE and ORDERED this the 31st day of July 2015.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been randomly assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
for all purposes, including trial. (See Docs. 5, 20). Inasmuch as no party, to date, has
returned to the Clerk of Court a Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge
(see Doc. 5 (“The parties have the right to have this action reassigned to a United States
District Judge for trial and disposition. Any party may request reassignment by emailing
the attached Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge to
email@example.com. Do not electronically file the document.”)), there
presently exists implicit consent to the undersigned conducting all proceedings in this case.
See Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 123 S. Ct. 1696, 1703, 155 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2003) (“We
think the better rule is to accept implied consent where, as here, the litigant or counsel was
made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it, and still voluntarily appeared
to try the case before the Magistrate Judge. Inferring consent in these circumstances thus
checks the risk of gamesmanship by depriving parties of the luxury of waiting for the
outcome before denying the magistrate judge’s authority. Judicial efficiency is served; the
Article III right is substantially honored.”).
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?