Filing 11

ORDER finding as moot 7 Motion to Dismiss. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 9/15/2015. (aks)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION SHDEA LAING, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:15-CV-141 (HL) v. FRED’S, INC., d/b/a FRED’S SUPER DOLLAR STORES INC., Defendant. ORDER This case is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant Fred’s, Inc. (Doc. 7). Defendant asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the basis that it improperly names Fred’s Stores, Inc., as opposed to Fred’s, Inc., as the defendant. Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) correcting the error and a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10), in which she argues that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is moot. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments to pleadings before trial. The rule states that a “party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” within 21 days after the pleading is served, or “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint (Doc. 1) on July 22, 2015. Defendant moved to dismiss that Complaint on August 27, 2015. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) on September 13, 2015. Because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed within 21 days after service of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, it qualifies as her one chance to amend as a matter of course. Thus, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which names Fred’s, Inc. as Defendant, now controls. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment is denied as moot. SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of September, 2015. /s/ Hugh Lawson_________________ HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE les 2

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?