Bates v. United States General Services Administration et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying as premature 12 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction & 13 Motion for Leave to File as set out. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 8/19/2013. Copies to parties. (mpp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CAROLYN BATES,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES )
ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00051-KD-C

ORDER
This action is before the Court on the federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or
Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) and Motion for Leave to File the Statements
of Fact and Conclusions of Law Supporting the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13).
It is ORDERED that the federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 12) is DENIED as moot due to Plaintiff having since
filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 17). 1

It is further ORDERED that the federal

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (Doc. 12) and motion to submit supporting briefing (Doc. 13) are DENIED as
premature, as Plaintiff has had no opportunity to engage in discovery. See Rule 56(a)
(“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
1

See ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 3:11-CV-719-J-37TEM, 2012 WL 612818, at *1-2
(M.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2012) (“The granting of the Motion to Amend renders moot the parties’ previous
pleadings. See Malowney v. Federal Collection Deposit Group, 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999)
(noting that ‘[a]n amended complaint supersedes a previously filed complaint’); Meterlogic, Inc. v.
Copier Solutions, Inc., 185 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (noting that the plaintiff's filing of an
amended complaint ‘rendered moot the parties' previous pleadings and the defendants' summary judgment
and Daubert motion’) . . . The pending motions to dismiss (Docs. # 34 & # 36) are denied as moot in
light of the First Amended Complaint.”).

(emphasis added)).
The federal Defendants are reminded that a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is due by Tuesday, September 3, 2013.

(Doc. 16).

DONE and ORDERED this the 19th day of August 2013.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2