Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 10 Motion to Stay. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 3/4/2015. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
L.P.,

4:14-CV-04099-KES

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.
ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS
COOPERATIVE, INC.,
RC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
VENTURE COMMUNICATIONS
COOPERATIVE,
WESTERN TELEPHONE COMPANY,
GOLDEN WEST
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COOPERATIVE, INC.,
JAMES VALLEY COOPERATIVE
TELEPHONE COMPANY,
TRIOTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
MIDSTATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
SANTEL COMMUNICATIONS
COOPERATIVE, INC.,
VALLEY TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., and
WEST RIVER COOPERATIVE
TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Defendants.

Defendants Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc., RC
Communications Inc., Venture Communications Cooperative, and Western
Telephone Company move to dismiss plaintiff Sprint Communications
Company, L.P.’s complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted.1 Docket 10; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Alternatively, defendants move this court to stay the action or refer the
controlling legal issues to the Federal Communications Commission for
resolution.
On June 27, 2014, Sprint filed a civil action alleging defendants
improperly billed Sprint for switched access charges. Docket 1. Defendants’
motion to dismiss was filed on August 15, 2014. Sprint sought leave to amend
its complaint on January 7, 2015, and the motion was granted on January 27.
Docket 25. Sprint filed its first amended complaint on February 2, 2015.
Docket 26.
Because the motion to dismiss was filed prior to and does not address
Sprint’s first amended complaint, the motion to dismiss is rendered moot. See
Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir.2002) (“If
anything [plaintiff's] motion to amend the complaint rendered moot
[defendant's] motion to dismiss the original complaint.” (citation omitted)); see
also Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 655 F. Supp. 2d 948, 958 (D. Minn. 2009)
(“[A]s a general proposition, if a defendant files a Motion to Dismiss, and the
plaintiff later files an Amended Complaint, the amended pleading renders the
defendant's Motion to Dismiss moot.” (citations omitted)). Defendants’ motion

The other defendants appearing in the caption were named as parties to
this dispute in Sprint’s amended complaint. See Docket 26.
1

2

to stay or transfer is also denied as moot because the motion to dismiss has
been denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (Docket 10)
is denied as moot and without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay or transfer
(Docket 10) is denied as moot and without prejudice.
Dated March 4, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3