Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

JOHNSTON v. J&B MECHANICAL, LLC, 4:17CV-00051-JHM. (2017)

Court: District Court, W.D. Kentucky Number: infdco20170816d05 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOSEPH H. McKINLEY, Jr. , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on a motion by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jack Johnston, to dismiss the counterclaim filed by Defendant/Counterclaimant, J&B Mechanical, LLC [DN 13]. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision. Jack Johnston filed a civil action against J&B Mechanical alleging that J&B Mechanical failed to pay the correct amount of overtime compensation to Johnston, and others similarly situated,
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jack Johnston, to dismiss the counterclaim filed by Defendant/Counterclaimant, J&B Mechanical, LLC [DN 13]. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision.

Jack Johnston filed a civil action against J&B Mechanical alleging that J&B Mechanical failed to pay the correct amount of overtime compensation to Johnston, and others similarly situated, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (Complaint ¶1.) J&B Mechanical filed an answer denying that it failed to pay the correct amount of overtime compensation. (Answer ¶¶ 17-27.) Contemporaneously with its answer, J&B Mechanical filed a counterclaim against Johnston alleging that Johnston "engaged in a pattern and practice of fraud, misrepresentation, disloyalty, and deceit" with respect to time he reported working at or while traveling to or from out-of-town worksites. (Counterclaim ¶¶ 8-9.) On July 5, 2017, Johnston filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim. On July 26, 2017, J&B Mechanical filed an amended counterclaim.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) "authorizes a party to amend his pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of the responsive pleading, or 21 days after service of a dispositive motion under Rule 12, whichever is earlier." Martinez v. Hiland, 2017 WL 939009, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) and (B)). In the instant case, Johnston filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim against him on July 5, 2017. Twenty-one days later, J&B Mechanical amended its counterclaim as a matter of course as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, because the filing of the amended counterclaim supersedes the original counterclaim and because Johnston's motion to dismiss is directed to the original counterclaim, the motion to dismiss is now moot.

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jack Johnston, to dismiss the counterclaim filed by Defendant/Counterclaimant, J&B Mechanical, LLC [DN 13] is DENIED AS MOOT.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer