Soo Line Railroad Company v. Consolidated Rail Corporation et al

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER : For the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order, the 37 and 39 Motions to Dismiss are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 6/22/17. (jss)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 2:17-CV-106 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the “Motion of Defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation to Dismiss the Complaint and to Dismiss or Strike the Complaint’s Requests for Relief,” filed by Consolidated Rail Corporation on June 2, 2017 (DE #37) and the “Joint Motion of Defendants CSX Transportation, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railway Company to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint,” filed by CSX Transportation, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railway Company on June 2, 2017 (DE #39). For the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED AS MOOT. On June 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Verified First Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial” (DE #43) in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows for amendment as a matter of course in this instance. An amended complaint becomes controlling once it is filed because the prior pleading is withdrawn by operation of law. Johnson v. Dossey, 515 F.3d 778, 780 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1057 (7th Cir. 1998). Because the newly filed amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, the pending motions to dismiss are DENIED AS MOOT. DATED: June 22, 2017 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court 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?