Garcia v. Cummings et al

Filing 30

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Rogers' motion to dismiss 17 3rd party complaint 14 DENIED as MOOT...; 2. Ct may consider arguments set forth in Rogers' motion to dismiss 17 3rd party complaint as well as 3rd party pltfs' br in opp in arriving @ its disposition of Rogers' motion to dismiss 25 amended 3rd party complaint. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 01/06/09. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DANIEL GARCIA, Plaintiff/Consolidated Defendant

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1886 : : (CONSOLIDATED) : and : (Judge Conner) : PRIME, INC. : Consolidated Defendant : : v. : : DAWN CUMMINGS, et al., : Defendants/Consolidated : Plaintiffs : --------------------------------------------------------------------------DAWN CUMMINGS, et al., : Third-Party Plaintiffs : : v. : : ROGER'S TOWING, INC., : Third-Party Defendant : ORDER AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2009, upon consideration of the pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 17), filed by third-party defendant Rogers Towing, Inc. ("Rogers") on May 23, 2008, and which seeks to dismiss the third-party complaint (Doc. 14) filed by third-party plaintiffs Dawn Cummings and Black Horse Carriers, Inc. (collectively "third-party plaintiffs"), and it appearing that third-party plaintiffs amended their third-party complaint on June 2, 2008,1 (see Doc. 23); see also FED. R.

At the time that third-party plaintiffs amended the third-party complaint, Rogers' motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) was fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

1

CIV . P. 15(a) (allowing a party to "amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . before being served with a responsive pleading"), and that Rogers filed a motion (Doc. 25) to dismiss the amended third-party complaint on June 24, 2008, and the court recognizing that an "amended complaint supersedes the original version," Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002); see also 6 CHARLES A. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476, at 556 (2d ed. 1990), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Rogers' motion (Doc. 17) to dismiss the third-party complaint (Doc. 14) is DENIED as moot. Third-party plaintiffs' third-party complaint (Doc. 14) is superseded by the amended third-party complaint (Doc. 23). See Snyder, 303 F.3d at 276. The court may consider the arguments set forth in Rogers' motion (Doc. 17) to dismiss the third-party complaint, as well as third-party plaintiffs' brief in opposition thereto (Doc. 20), in arriving at its disposition of Rogers' motion (Doc. 25) to dismiss the amended thirdparty complaint (Doc. 23).

2.

S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

2