Filed: Jan. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CATHERINE D. PERRY , District Judge . Plaintiff Paulette Curtis brings this action alleging that defendant Caine & Weiner Company, Inc.'s efforts to collect on a debt violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq. Upon removal of the action to this Court from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, defendant sought to dismiss plaintiff's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a c
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CATHERINE D. PERRY , District Judge . Plaintiff Paulette Curtis brings this action alleging that defendant Caine & Weiner Company, Inc.'s efforts to collect on a debt violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq. Upon removal of the action to this Court from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, defendant sought to dismiss plaintiff's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cl..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Paulette Curtis brings this action alleging that defendant Caine & Weiner Company, Inc.'s efforts to collect on a debt violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. Upon removal of the action to this Court from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, defendant sought to dismiss plaintiff's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff thereafter amended her complaint, after which defendant again filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) seeking to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff now requests that I stay my ruling on defendant's most recent motion and convert it to one for summary judgment or, in the alternative, grant her additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss. Defendant consents to plaintiff's request for additional time to respond, but opposes the motion to stay.
Upon consideration of the matter,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Stay Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF #15] is DENIED to the extent it requests that I stay my ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. To the extent plaintiff requests additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss, the request is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have to and including January 8, 2016, by which to respond to defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted.
Given that plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is now the effective pleading before the Court,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Petition for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted [ECF #8], which is directed to plaintiff's original pleading in this cause, is DENIED AS MOOT. See Cartier v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 547 Fed. Appx. 800, 803 (8th Cir. 2013) (an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect).
