Porter v. Tintic School District et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying as moot 4 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 6 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. The court directs Plaintiff to re-file the proposed Amended Complaint so that it is a separate docket entry rather than an exhibit to his motion. Because the court concluded the motions could be addressed on the briefs, it hereby strikes the hearing set for Thursday, 6/2/2011 at 3:30 pm. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 5/31/2011. (rlr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
TIMOTHY WAYNE PORTER,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:10-cv-0909 CW
TINTIC SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,
Judge Clark Waddoups
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Defendants’1 Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend Complaint. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on November 22, 2010. Plaintiff filed
his motion to amend on December 13, 2010. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states,
“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a
responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is
earlier.”2 Plaintiff filed his motion to amend twenty-one days after Defendants filed their motion.
He included a proposed amended complaint. Because he filed the amended complaint within the
time allotted under Rule 15, Porter did not need leave of court to do so. Thus, his amended
complaint is properly before the court.
When an amended complaint is filed it supersedes the previous complaint. Defendants’
1
The defendants in this matter are Tintic School District, Ron Barlow, the Current Tintic
School District Superintendent, Estate of Mary Lou Draper, Board President Janice Boswell,
Board Member Ron Bray, Kodey Hughes, and John Does I–II (collectively “Defendants”).
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (2010) (emphasis added).
motion to dismiss the original complaint is therefore denied as moot. If Defendants choose to file
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, any applicable arguments made in their first motion to
dismiss may be incorporated by reference.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.3
The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint.4 The court directs Plaintiff to re-file
the proposed Amended Complaint so that it is a separate docket entry rather than an exhibit to his
motion.
Because the court concluded the motions could be addressed on the briefs, it hereby strikes
the hearing set for Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.
DATED this 31st day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge
3
Docket No. 4.
4
Docket No. 6.
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?