Campbell et al v. Baylard, Billington, Dempsey & Jensen, P.C. et al

Filing 154

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motions to strike (Doc. Nos. #132 , #134 , #136 , and #138 ) are DENIED. Plaintiffs are directed to file any opposition to Defendants' pending motions to dismiss the second amended complaint (Doc. Nos. #120 , #125 , #127 , and #129 ) on or before March 1, 2018. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw (Doc. #141 ) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 2/6/2018. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVE CAMPBELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BAYLARD, BILLINGTON, DEMPSEY &
JENSEN, P.C., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17-cv-02390-JAR

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motions to strike (Doc. Nos. 132, 134, 136,
and 138) and to withdraw (Doc. No. 141). Defendants oppose the motions to strike. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motions to strike will be denied, and the motion to withdraw
will be granted.
Plaintiffs filed this action pro se on September 11, 2017, asserting numerous counts against
numerous defendants, and they filed a first amended complaint as a matter of course on September
25, 2017 (Doc. No. 3). In response, Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the first
amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 37, 41, 44, 47).
On December 18, 2017, Plaintiffs sought leave of the Court to file a second amended
complaint “to admit essential evidence and correct dates that were inadvertently mistyped,” as
well as cure the pleading deficiencies highlighted in the motions to dismiss (Doc. No. 93). The
Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion on January 9, 2018, and Defendants filed separate motions to
dismiss the second amended complaint. (Doc. Nos. 120, 125, 127, and 129). Plaintiffs now
move for those motions to dismiss to be stricken, suggesting that the time to respond to their
lawsuit had passed; that the motions to dismiss were duplicative; and that the motions to dismiss

were moot based on the Court’s order denying as moot the motions to dismiss filed in response to
Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.
It is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and
renders the original complaint without legal effect. In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064,
1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Washer v. Bullitt County, 110 U.S. 558, 562 (1884)). Generally,
when a district court permits a plaintiff to file an amended complaint, pending motions pertaining
to the original complaint are denied as moot, and the defendants then have the opportunity to file
motions concerning the amended complaint within the time constraints set forth in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a). See Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F. 3d 952, 956 (8th
Cir. 2002).
Here, the second amended complaint is the operative complaint, and Defendants were
required to file responsive pleadings. The motions to dismiss the second amended complaint
were properly and timely filed. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motions to strike will be denied. However,
as Plaintiffs noted in their motion to withdraw, their second amended complaint rendered moot
their motions for default judgment against Defendants Woodland Lakes Neighborhood
Community Watch and Washington County Sheriff’s Department (Docs. 77 and 79). Therefore,
the Court will allow Plaintiffs to withdraw the motions for default judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions to strike (Doc. Nos. 132, 134, 136,
and 138) are DENIED. Plaintiffs are directed to file any opposition to Defendants’ pending
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 120, 125, 127, and 129) on or before
March 1, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw (Doc. 141) is

GRANTED.

Dated this 6th day of February, 2018.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE