ORDER

WILLIAM E. CASSADY, Magistrate Judge.

Motions to dismiss claims asserted in the plaintiff's first amended complaint have been filed by all but one defendant.1 At the request of the parties, the undersigned extended the deadlines to file responses and replies to those motions. (See Doc. 57.) Responses to the motions have been filed. (See supra note 1.) Replies are due tomorrow, July 6, 2012. (See Doc. 57.)

On July 2, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 66), stating that "[t]he proposed Second Amended Complaint attached [to the motion for leave] clarifies and alleges more specifically the breaches in the standard of care that Dr. Sherman committed" and "adds medical negligence claims against Defendants May, Williams and Pimperel — three nurses who were added as parties in the first amended complaint." (Id., ¶¶ 6 & 7.)

Now pending before the undersigned is a motion to stay "any responses and/or replies that are due in regards to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint" (Doc. 67), filed by ten of the eleven defendants on July 3, 2012. For the reasons stated below, the motion to stay is DENIED.

While a motion for leave to amend the currently operative complaint has been filed and referred to the District Judge, the undersigned notes that an amendment to a complaint does not automatically render moot the grounds raised in a motion to dismiss the previously operative complaint, see, e.g., Bimler v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 965 F.Supp. 292, 296 (D. Conn. 1997) (citing Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij, 76 F.Supp. 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1948)); New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Home Sav. & Loan Co. of Youngstown, No. 4:05-cv-02179, 2008 WL 2446066, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Ohio June 16, 2008), vacated and reversed on other grounds, 581 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2009). This is especially true where—like here—the amended complaint is "substantially identical to the original complaint." Smith v. GE Aviation, No. 3:10-cv-13, 2011 WL 2790166, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 15, 2011) (quoting Mata-Cuellar v. Tenn. Dep't of Safety, No. 3:10-0619, 2010 WL 3122635, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 6, 2010). In Smith, the only differences between the operative complaint and its previous incarnation were additional facts alleged in support of one claim and the addition of another claim. See id. Similar to that case, here, the plaintiff represents that his amendment merely "clarifies and alleges" Defendant Sherman's alleged breaches in the standard of care and adds a claim against three defendants. (Doc. 66, ¶¶ 6 & 7.) The undersigned, therefore, believes—assuming the District Judge grants the motion for leave to amend— that the briefing the parties have already provided, and will provide shortly, will go a long way (if not most of the way) towards resolving any subsequent motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.

If a second amended complaint is filed, the undersigned anticipates a conference with the parties to discuss the efficient resolution of pre-answer motions. In the meantime, replies remain due tomorrow, July 6, 2012. (See Doc. 57.)

DONE and ORDERED.