Doe v. Purdue University et al

Filing 70

OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING as moot 43 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants Jacob Amberger, Mitchell Elias Daniels, Jr., Erin Oliver, Purdue University, Purdue University Board of Trustees, Alysa Christmas Rollock, Kather ine Sermersheim. The Court intends to rule on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Section 1983 Damage Claims, Due Process Claims, and Injunctive Relief Claims 58 in the next 45 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joshua P Kolar on 3/31/2020. (lhc)

USDC IN/ND case 2:17-cv-00033-JPK document 70 filed 03/31/20 page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-33-JPK

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss Ex Parte Young Claim and Enter
Rule 54(B) Dismissal [DE 43], filed by Defendants Mitchell Elias Daniels, Jr., Alysa Christmas
Rollock, Katherine Sermersheim, Erin Oliver, and Jacob Amberger (“the Individual Defendants”)
on August 13, 2019. In the instant motion, the Individual Defendants move for a dismissal of
Count I of the original Complaint as to them for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff
John Doe filed an Amended Complaint, as permitted pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B).
“When an amended complaint is filed, the prior pleading is withdrawn and the amended
pleading is controlling.” Johnson v. Dossey, 515 F.3d 778, 780 (7th Cir. 2008). Consequently,
“[c]ourts routinely deny motions to dismiss as moot after an amended complaint is filed, unless a
defendant wishes to apply that same motion to the amended complaint because the amended
complaint has not remedied the previous deficiencies.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BGC Partners,
Inc., No. 10 C 715, 2010 WL 3272842, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2010).
On September 17, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, except Plaintiff’s claim for damages pursuant to Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, noting that the Amended Complaint narrows the original Complaint by

USDC IN/ND case 2:17-cv-00033-JPK document 70 filed 03/31/20 page 2 of 2

dropping Defendants Oliver and Amberger and further dropping allegations of individual-capacity
liability for the remaining Individual Defendants. The filing of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and
subsequent filing of Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims except one in the Amended
Complaint renders the instant motion to dismiss the original Complaint moot.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES as moot the Individual Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Ex Parte Young Claim and Enter Rule 54(B) Dismissal [DE 43]. The Court intends to rule
on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Section 1983 Damage Claims, Due Process Claims, and
Injunctive Relief Claims [DE 58] in the next 45 days.
So ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2020.
s/ Joshua P. Kolar
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSHUA P. KOLAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2