Kramer et al v. America's Wholesale Lenders et al

Filing 31

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. [Doc. 26] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss the seminal complaint is DENIED as moot and without prejudice. [Doc. 7] Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 10/25/2010. (RJD)

Kramer et al v. America's Wholesale Lenders et al

Doc. 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION RONALD KRAMER and JULIE KRAMER, Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LEADERS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case number 4:10cv0156 TCM

ORDER Pending in this pro se case alleging violations of various acts regulating the home mortgage business, e.g., the Truth in Lending Act and its Regulation Z, are a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants and a motion by Plaintiffs for leave to file an amended complaint. Defendants do not oppose the filing of the amended complaint; however, in their response to Plaintiffs' motion, they state that the arguments presented in their pending motion to dismiss apply equally to the amended complaint. Perhaps so, but the filing of the amended complaint renders the motion to dismiss the seminal complaint moot. See Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002); Blake v. Express Scripts, Inc., No. 4:09cv0563 CAS (E.D. Mo. July 1, 2009). Moreover, the refiling of the motion to dismiss, should Defendants elect to proceed so, gives Plaintiffs notice and opportunity to address any deficiencies cited in such a motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. [Doc. 26]

Dockets.Justia.com

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss the seminal complaint is DENIED as moot and without prejudice. [Doc. 7]

/s/ Thomas C. Mummert, III THOMAS C. MUMMERT, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated this 25th of October, 2010.

-2-