Al Himyari et al v. Cissna et al

Filing 36

ORDER finding as moot 31 Motion to Certify Class; granting 32 Motion to Amend/Correct; finding as moot 33 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 35 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

AL HIMYARI, ET AL.,
Case No. 18-10242
Plaintiffs,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
CISSNA, ET AL.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEPHANIE
DAWKINS DAVIS

Defendants.

/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT [32]; AND TERMINATING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
CERTIFY CLASS [31], DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [33], DEFENDANTS’ EX
PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE [35]
On July 23, 2018, the Court held a status conference on the record at which it
set a briefing schedule for dispositive motions. At the conference, the Court granted
Plaintiffs’ request to file an amended complaint which would include additional
petitioners who reside in Michigan. Tr. 20:1-14, July 23, 2018.
In an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint [32] on August 15, 2018. Also on that date, in accordance with

Page 1 of 3

the briefing schedule, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify Class [31] and Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss [33].
On August 30, 2018, Defendants filed an ex parte Motion to Extend the
Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [35]. In their
Motion to Extend, Defendants ask the Court postpone the date on which their
response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class is due until after the Court rules on
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [32].
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) provides that the Court should freely grant leave to
amend the complaint where justice so requires. For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’
brief, and for the reasons stated on the record at the status conference, the Court
grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [32] in the interest
of justice.
Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint “is a nullity,
because an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints.” B & H Med., L.L.C.
v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 268 n.8 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Drake v. City of
Detroit, 266 Fed. App’x 444, 448 (6th Cir. 2008)). Thus, the motions associated with
the Complaint [15] will be rendered moot. See Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep’t of Human
Servs., No. 11-10724, 2011 WL 5975265, *12 fn.13 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 28, 2011).
The parties may re-file motions in accordance with L.R. 7.1.
Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to file Amended
Complaint [32] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class [31],
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [33], and Defendants’ Motion to Extend [35] are
TERMINATED as moot.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2018

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3