BATES v. UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 13-00051-KD-C. (2013)
Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20130822725
Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2013
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This action is before the Court on the federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) and Motion for Leave to File the Statements of Fact and Conclusions of Law Supporting the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13). It is ORDERED that the federal Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 12) is DENIED as moot due to Plaintiff having since filed an Amended
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This action is before the Court on the federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) and Motion for Leave to File the Statements of Fact and Conclusions of Law Supporting the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13). It is ORDERED that the federal Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 12) is DENIED as moot due to Plaintiff having since filed an Amended ..
More
ORDER
KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge.
This action is before the Court on the federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) and Motion for Leave to File the Statements of Fact and Conclusions of Law Supporting the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13). It is ORDERED that the federal Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 12) is DENIED as moot due to Plaintiff having since filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 17).1 It is further ORDERED that the federal Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 12) and motion to submit supporting briefing (Doc. 13) are DENIED as premature, as Plaintiff has had no opportunity to engage in discovery. See Rule 56(a) ("The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (emphasis added)).
The federal Defendants are reminded that a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is due by Tuesday, September 3, 2013. (Doc. 16).
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 3:11-CV-719-J-37TEM, 2012 WL 612818, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2012) ("The granting of the Motion to Amend renders moot the parties' previous pleadings. See Malowney v. Federal Collection Deposit Group, 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that `[a]n amended complaint supersedes a previously filed complaint'); Meterlogic, Inc. v. Copier Solutions, Inc., 185 F.Supp.2d 1292, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (noting that the plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint `rendered moot the parties' previous pleadings and the defendants' summary judgment and Daubert motion') . . . The pending motions to dismiss (Docs. # 34 & # 36) are denied as moot in light of the First Amended Complaint.").
Source: Leagle
