Matthews et al v. Ankor Energy, LLC, et al.
ORDER denying as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss & the 11 Motion to Dismiss; granting 15 Motion to Amend Complaint as set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 5/1/2017. Copies to parties. (mpp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
HOOPER W. MATTHEWS, III, et al.,:
ANKOR ENERGY LLC, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-00062-B
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss (Docs. 10, 11), and Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend
Complaint. (Doc. 15).
Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s motion to
amend the complaint is GRANTED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to
docket Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint attached to the motion
to amend. (Doc. 15-1).
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 10,
11) are DENIED as moot.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs
the amendments of pleadings before trial.
Rule 15(a) states that
a party “may amend its pleading once as a matter of course”
within 21 days after serving the pleading, or, if the pleading is
one in which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days
after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule
“In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is
within the sole discretion of the district court.
Builders Co. v. Lewis, 513 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1313 (S.D. Ala.
2007) (citing Laurie v. Alabama Ct. of Crim. App., 256 F.3d 1266,
1274 (11th Cir. 2001)).
However, Rule 15(a) tempers the court’s
discretion by directing that “leave shall be freely given when
justice so requires.”
Id. (citing Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d
1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001)).
In the instant action, Plaintiffs
assert that they seek to amend their complaint in order to add
more factual and jurisdictional allegations, and that counsel for
unopposed motion to amend is due to be GRANTED.
Having granted Plaintiffs permission to file their amended
complaint, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 10, 11) are
rendered moot and, accordingly, are DENIED as moot.
Miami-Dade Housing Agency, 501 F. 3d 1241, 1243 (llth Cir. 2007)
amendment, and is no longer a part of the pleader’s averments
against his adversary.”)(quoting Dresdner Bank AG, Dresdner Bank
AG in Hamburg v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F. 3d 1210, 1215 (llth
Cir. 2006)) (quotation marks omitted); see also Meterlogic, Inc.
v. Copier Solutions, Inc., 185 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 1297 (S.D. Fla.
complaint “rendered moot the parties’ previous pleadings and the
defendants’ summary judgment and Daubert motions.”).
DONE this the 1st day of May, 2017.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?