King v. Mansfield University of Pennsylvania et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM re Pltf's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 24 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 3/8/18. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICK KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
MANSFIELD UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:15-cv-0159

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Rule 56(a) Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Affirmative Defense of the Statute of
Limitations. (Doc. 24.) For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied as
moot without prejudice to the filing of a renewed motion.
I.

Background
On December 24, 2014, Plaintiff Patrick King (“Plaintiff”) filed a

complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
(Docket No. 2014-cv-9560), naming Defendants Mansfield University of
Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, President John
Halsted, and University Police Chief Christine Shegan. Defendants filed an answer
to the complaint on January 30, 2015. (Doc. 3.) On September 5, 2017, Plaintiff
filed the instant motion for partial summary judgment on Defendants’ affirmative
defense of the statute of limitations. (Docs. 24-25.) Two weeks later, on September

19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 27.) Defendants filed a brief
in opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment on September 26, 2017,
arguing that the court should deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot given the later filing
of an amended complaint, especially when Defendants had not yet filed an answer
to the amended complaint. (Doc. 28.) On October 2, 2017, Defendants filed an
answer (Doc. 32), and on October 4, 2017, Plaintiff replied to the brief in
opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 33).
II.

Discussion
Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was filed in response to

Defendants’ affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, which was raised in
its answer to Plaintiff’s initial complaint in this civil action.1 However, on
September 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 27.) An amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint such that any pending motions
addressing the original complaint may be deemed moot. See Bullock v. Ashcroft,
Civ. No. 04-cv-2639, 2006 WL 1670278, *1 (M.D. Pa. June 15, 2006) (stating
that, if the court were to accept Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, “Defendant’s
motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative for summary judgment, with respect to the
second amended complaint will be rendered moot.”).

1

The court notes that the most recent complaint raises factual allegations which are virtually
identical to those raised by Plaintiff in a previous federal action, King v. Mansfield, et al., Docket
No. 1:11-cv-1112.
2

Because Defendants’ affirmative defense of the statute of limitations had
yet to be raised in response to the amended complaint as of the date of the filing of
both the motion for partial summary judgment and Defendants’ opposition thereto,
the court finds that the motion should be denied as moot but without prejudice to
the filing of a renewed motion for partial summary judgment. The court’s decision
will provide Defendants with the opportunity to file a meaningful response to
Plaintiff’s motion, should he choose to renew it.
III.

Conclusion
As stated above, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as moot.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: March 8, 2018

3