Daniels v. United Automoble, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Amalgamated Local 2278 et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying as moot 7 Motion to Dismiss; and 8 Motion to Dismiss, filed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff's amendment of the Complaint has mooted these Motions. Defendants have until October 12, 2012 to file a response to the First Amended Complaint. See attached ORDER for further details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 9/24/12. (jky)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 12-61577-Civ-SCOLA

JAMIE DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE,
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 2278, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 7, 8],
filed on September 10, 2012. Subsequently, on September 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint [ECF No. 11].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party to amend the pleadings “once as a
matter of course” if done within “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after
service of a motion under Rule 12(b),” whichever comes first. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “For
purposes of this Rule, a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.” Williams v. Bd. of
Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007).
Here, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint eleven days after Defendants filed
their separate Motions to Dismiss. Therefore, Plaintiff’s amendment must be allowed as a matter
of course, and does not require permission from the Court. “When the plaintiff has the right to
file an amended complaint as a matter of course,” which is the case here, “the plain language of
Rule 15(a) shows that the court lacks the discretion to reject the amended complaint[.]” See id. at
1293 n.6 (emphasis original).

Further, because Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint supersedes the prior Complaint,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint is now moot. See Taylor v. Alabama, 275
F. App’x 836, 838 (Cir. 11th 2008) (noting that when “Plaintiffs amended their complaint,” the
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss became moot”).
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendants’ two Motions
to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 7, 8] are DENIED AS MOOT, in light of the newly-filed First Amended
Complaint. The Defendants shall file a response to the First Amended Complaint no later than
October 12, 2012.

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida September 24, 2012.

________________________________
ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of record