Wells v. Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway Co. et al

Filing 41

ORDER: BNSF Railway's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [Docket No. 9 ] is DENIED as moot. If Wells intends to amend his First Amended Complaint, he shall, within 14 days of the date of this Order, serve and file either (1) a Second Amended Complaint, if BNSF Railway consents in writing to the amendment, or (2) a motion to amend. The hearing on July 25, 2017, at 11 a.m. is CANCELLED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on July 7, 2017. (CBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
James R. Wells,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-807 (JNE/SER)
ORDER

BNSF Railway Company,
Defendant.
Asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota
Human Rights Act, James R. Wells brought this action against Burlington NorthernSanta Fe Railway Co. and Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. Maintaining that it was
incorrectly named as Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway Co., BNSF Railway
Company moved to dismiss the Complaint. The next day, Wells voluntarily dismissed
one of the Complaint’s three counts. Later, he filed a First Amended Complaint, which
names BNSF Railway as the sole defendant. 1 BNSF Railway again moved to dismiss.
In his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, Wells
requested leave to amend his pleading “if the Court finds his First Amended Complaint to
be deficient.” In its reply memorandum, BNSF Railway addressed Wells’s request:
Wells has already amended his pleading once after BNSF’s motion to
dismiss his original Complaint, but he failed to address the issues BNSF
1

The Court denies as moot BNSF Railway’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. See
In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It
is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and
renders the original complaint without legal effect.”); Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi
Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002) (“If anything, Pure Country’s motion to
amend the complaint rendered moot Sigma Chi’s motion to dismiss the original
complaint.”).
1

raised about the claims that now remain. Because he has still failed to
plead facts sufficient to state those claims, BNSF can only assume he is
unable to do so and that any further amendment would be futile.
Nevertheless, BNSF does not oppose Wells’s request if the Court is
inclined to grant him leave to further amend his Complaint.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of BNSF Railway’s Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, the Court grants Wells an opportunity to attempt
to amend his pleading. If Wells intends to amend his First Amended Complaint, he shall,
within 14 days of the date of this Order, serve and file either (1) a Second Amended
Complaint, if BNSF Railway consents in writing to the amendment, or (2) a motion to
amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); D. Minn. LR 15.1. The Court defers consideration
of BNSF Railway’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The hearing on
July 25, 2017, at 11 a.m. is cancelled.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated
above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

BNSF Railway’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [Docket No. 9] is
DENIED as moot.

2.

If Wells intends to amend his First Amended Complaint, he shall, within 14
days of the date of this Order, serve and file either (1) a Second Amended
Complaint, if BNSF Railway consents in writing to the amendment, or (2) a
motion to amend.

3.

The hearing on July 25, 2017, at 11 a.m. is CANCELLED.

Dated: July 7, 2017
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2