Kallin v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/14/2018. 14 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint DENIED as moot and without prejudice. 18 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time GRANTED; Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by 5/31/2018. See Order. (cc: all counsel) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MATTHEW J. KALLIN and
REBECCA A. WATTS-KALLIN,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 17-CV-1807-JPS

v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

ORDER

Defendant.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 6, 2018.
(Docket #14). Plaintiffs both responded to the motion and simultaneously
filed an amended complaint, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)
permits them to do. (Docket #15, #16); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). The filing
of an amended complaint nearly always moots a motion to dismiss the
original complaint. See Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir. 1999)
(“[W]hen a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the new complaint
supersedes all previous complaints and controls the case from that point
forward.”); 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1476 (3d ed. 2018).
The only exception arises in limited instances where the substance of the
two complaints remains the same, see Avina v. Bohlen, 882 F.3d 674, 676 (7th
Cir. 2018), but the Court’s review of the original and amended complaints
in this case shows that exception would not apply here. To the extent some
alleged deficiencies from the original complaint remain in the amended
complaint, Defendant can reincorporate those arguments into a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. Consequently, the Court will deny
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint without prejudice.

Additionally, Defendant and Plaintiffs agree that Defendant should
have an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint. (Docket
#18). The Court will adopt the parties’ agreed-upon extension. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b)(1)(A). The parties also suggest that Plaintiffs should have “an
additional two weeks for any necessary response to the defendant’s filing,”
id. at 1, but if Defendant files a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs would be
afforded three weeks, not two, see Civ. L. R. 7(b). To the extent Plaintiffs
may need an extension of time to respond to a renewed motion to dismiss,
leave for the same can be sought at the appropriate juncture.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original
complaint (Docket #14) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot and
without prejudice;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s unopposed motion
for an extension of time (Docket #18) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;
and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall answer or
otherwise respond to the amended complaint (Docket #16) no later than
May 31, 2018.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 14th day of May, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2