Rainey-Jones v. Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting 29 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; denying as moot 25 Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff shall file her secondamended complaint as a stand-alone entry on the docket within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. The Clerk is directed to terminate Defendants Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center and John Does as parties to this action. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/08/2020. (thb)

Download PDF
Case 1:19-cv-00186-JRH-BKE Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION CAROLYN RAINEY-JONES, * ■k Plaintiff, * * V. CV 119-186 * * CHARLIE NORWOOD VA MEDICAL CENTER; SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, * ROBERT WILKIE; and JOHN DOES, Defendants. ORDER Before Dismissal the Court (Doc. 28); are: (2) (Doc. (Doc. 25) . I. the Parties' 29); and The (3) Defendants' Doc. Parties 28, partial CONSENT PARTIAL DISMISSAL cite Federal stipulation of partial Rule of 41(a) (1) (A) (ii) as support for the stipulation. Dismissal, Partial The Court addresses each in turn. The Court begins with the Parties' dismissal. Consent Plaintiff's motion for leave to file her second amended complaint motion to dismiss (1) at 1. ) Civil Procedure (Consent Partial If the stipulation of dismissal is proper, the stipulation is "self-executing" and becomes effective upon filing. 1278 Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, (11th Cir. 2012) . Case 1:19-cv-00186-JRH-BKE Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 5 Here, the stipulation of partial dismissal is proper in part and improper in part. In a recent opinion, the Eleventh Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is an improper mechanism to dismiss less than all claims in a lawsuit. Perry v. Schumacher Grp. of La., 891 F.3d 954, 958 (11th Cir. 2018). In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the plain language of Rule 41(a)(1) contemplates dismissing an "action." Id. "There is no mention in the Rule of the option to stipulate dismissal of a portion of a plaintiff's lawsuit — e.g., a particular claim — while leaving a different part of the lawsuit pending before the trial court." Id. (emphasis in original). A stipulation of dismissal may be used, however, to dismiss an entire action against a particular defendant in a lawsuit. Jackson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. CV 119-096, 2020 WL 476698, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 29, 2020). To the extent the stipulation of partial dismissal sought dismissal of all claims against Defendants Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center and John Does, the dismissal was effective at the time of filing. Because the stipulation of partial dismissal also sought dismissal of some, but not all, claims against Defendant Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs, Robert Wilkie ("Wilkie"), the stipulation of partial dismissal was improper as to those claims. Accordingly, the stipulation of partial dismissal Case 1:19-cv-00186-JRH-BKE Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 5 terminated Defendants Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center and John Does, but the claims against Defendant Wilkie survived. II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Possibly recognizing the stipulation of partial dismissal's failure to achieve all of her desired goals, Plaintiff filed her motion for leave to file her second amended complaint. (Doc. 29.) Because the motion falls outside the time period for Plaintiff to amend her complaint as a matter of course, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), Plaintiff may amend her complaint ''only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Id. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff apparently contends that the consent motion for partial dismissal, signed by all parties, is written consent that the Defendants agree to the motion to amend. (See Consent Partial Dismissal, at 2; Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. Compl., Doc. 29, at 1.) Moreover, Perry specifically contemplated the use of Rule dismiss 15 to inapplicable. less than all claims Perry, 891 F.3d at 958. when Rule 41(a)(1) is The Court finds no reason to deny Plaintiff s motion for leave to file her second amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) 1 Plaintiff failed to acknowledge Rule 16's applicability to the present motion. In the Eleventh Circuit, when a "motion to amend [i]s filed after the scheduling order's deadline, [the moving party] must first demonstrate good cause under Rule 16(b) before [the court] will consider whether amendment is proper under Rule 15(a)." Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998). The Scheduling Order's deadline to amend expired May 22, 2020. (Scheduling Order, Doc. 17.) Despite Plaintiff's lack of attention to Rule 16(b), in light Case 1:19-cv-00186-JRH-BKE Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 5 III. DEFENDANTS' PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS Finally, the Court addresses Defendants' partial motion to dismiss. ''It super[s]edes is an well-established original complaint complaint without legal effect." Inc. V. Franklin that and an amended renders the complaint original Renal Treatment Ctrs.—Mid-Atl., Chevrolet-Cadillac-Pontiac-GMC, No. 608CV087, 2009 WL 995564, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 2009) (quoting In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005)) (citing Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982)); accord Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.l (11th Cir. 1999) ("An amended complaint supersedes an original complaint."). Because Defendants' partial motion to dismiss applies to Plaintiff's first amended complaint, the superseding complaint moots Defendants' partial motion to dismiss. IV. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff s motion for leave to file her second amended complaint (Doc. 29) is GRANTED and Defendants' partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff shall FILE her second amended complaint as a stand-alone entry on the docket within seven of Defendants' reported consent and Perry, the Court finds good cause to amend here. Case 1:19-cv-00186-JRH-BKE Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 5 of 5 (7) days of the date of this Order. terminate The Clerk is DIRECTED to Defendants Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center and John Does as parties to this action.^ ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this day of September, 2020. J. RA^mMT^HALL, CfilEF JUDGE UNITED s/aTES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2 The Docket currently reflects "Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs" and "Robert Wilkie" as separate defendants. Robert Wilkie is the Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs. Accordingly, the Clerk is FURTHER DIRECTED to CONSOLIDATE Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs and Robert Wilkie as one defendant.

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?