Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.

Filing 26

Order finding as moot the 21 MOTION to Dismiss. Defendant's answer or Rule 12(b) motion in response to the Amended Complaint is due by 4/25/2017. Signed by District Judge William H. Steele on 4/11/2017. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FAMILY MEDICINE PHARMACY LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION 17-0053-WS-MU

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint (doc.
24) and Plaintiff’s Suggestion of Mootness (doc. 25).
On March 27, 2017, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (doc. 25) plaintiff’s Class
Action Complaint (doc. 1) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. The Court promptly entered
a briefing schedule, pursuant to which plaintiff’s response to the Rule 12(b) Motion was due on
or before April 11, 2017, with any reply by defendant to be filed by April 18, 2017. (See doc.
22.) On April 10, 2017, however, plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (doc. 24).
This filing was made as of right pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., inasmuch as plaintiff
had not previously amended its pleading and the amended pleading was filed within 21 days
after service of defendant’s Rule 12(b) motion. As such, the Amended Class Action Complaint
(doc. 24) is now the operative pleading in this matter, and the original Class Action Complaint
(doc. 1) has been superseded and is no longer of any force or effect.1
1

See generally Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir.
2007) (“Under both Alabama and federal law, an amended complaint supersedes the initial
complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.”); Pintando v. Miami-Dade Housing
Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007) (“As a general matter, an 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.”) (citations and internal marks
omitted); Thomas v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 661 Fed.Appx. 575, 577 (11th Cir. Sept. 8, 2016)
(“Generally speaking, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint: averments
against one’s adversaries dropped from the original complaint no longer count.”).

The obvious question, of course, is what this development means for defendant’s pending
Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has filed a Suggestion of Mootness and, after careful consideration,
the Court agrees. In the wake of the amendment to the pleadings, it is not entirely clear whether
defendant wishes to continue to assert all of the arguments found in its original Motion to
Dismiss, whether it wishes to revise or supplement those arguments, and so on. Rather than
speculating as to movant’s intentions or attempting to synchronize the pending Motion to
Dismiss with a complaint that may have changed in material respects in the interim, a far more
efficient approach is to deem defendant’s Motion moot and set new deadlines for responsive
pleadings or Rule 12(b) motions relating to the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Motion
to Dismiss (doc. 25) is moot because it relates to a pleading that is now devoid of any legal force
or effect. Defendant’s answer or Rule 12(b) motion in response to the Amended Complaint is
due on or before April 25, 2017. Should defendant wish to renew its Motion to Dismiss, it must
reproduce in full any arguments that it intends to reassert from its prior Rule 12(b) Motion, so
that the briefing on the renewed motion is self-contained, without merely adopting by reference
the contents of previous briefs relating to now-moot motions.
DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 2017.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-