Soo Line Railroad Company v. Consolidated Rail Corporation et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY,
CORPORATION, et al.,
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
15(a)(1)(B), which allows for amendment as a matter of course in
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because the prior pleading is withdrawn by operation of law.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
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?