The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc. v. St. Marks Avenue, LLC et al

Filing 95

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying without prejudice Stacy Smith's 40 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 3/6/2017. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-4055

March 6, 2017
MEMORANDUM TO PARTIES RE:

The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation,
Inc. v. St. Marks Avenue, LLC, et al.
Civil Action No. GLR-15-3525

Dear Parties:
Pending before the Court is Defendant Stacy Smith’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim (ECF No. 40). The Motion is ripe for disposition and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule
105.6 (D.Md. 2016). For the reasons outlined below, the Court will deny the Motion without prejudice.
Plaintiff The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc. (the “Foundation”) is a private
Maryland organization that provides grants to organizations that offer direct services to disadvantaged
and vulnerable individuals. (Am. Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 57). Smith is the Chief Executive Officer and
registered agent of Communities Organized to Improve Life, Inc. (“COIL”), a not-for-profit corporation
organized under Maryland law. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 7). This matter involves the sale of property located at 1200
West Baltimore Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21223, COIL’s principal address. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 18–21).
On November 19, 2015, the Foundation sued Smith, raising claims for false endorsement in
violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (2012) (Count I); breach of contract
(Count II); civil conspiracy (Count III); and accounting as to both COIL and Smith (Count IV).
(Compl., ECF No. 1). On June 28, 2016, the Foundation filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 38). Smith did not oppose the Motion. On July 16, 2016, Smith filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 40) and the Foundation filed a Response on July 27, 2016
(ECF No. 41). Smith did not file a Reply. On December 5, 2016, the Court granted the Foundation’s
Motion (ECF No. 56) and the Foundation filed an Amended Complaint on the same day. (Am. Compl.,
ECF No. 57). When a plaintiff files an amended complaint, it generally moots any pending motions to
dismiss because the original complaint is superseded. Venable v. Pritzker, No. GLR-13-1867, 2014 WL
2452705, at *5 (D.Md. May 30, 2014), aff’d, 610 F. App'x 341 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court
will deny Smith’s Motion without prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, Smith’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 40)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it shall
constitute an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly and mail a copy to
Smith at her address of record.
Very truly yours,
/s/
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge