Filed: Oct. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NOELLE C. COLLINS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant Missouri Home Therapy, LLC's ("Missouri Home Therapy") Motion to Dismiss. 1 (Doc. 5.) For the following reasons, Defendant Missouri Home Therapy's Motion to Dismiss will be DENIED, as moot. Defendant must file a response to the first Amended Complaint within seven (7) days. I. Background Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint in this Court on June 27, 2018. (Doc. 1.) In that Complai
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NOELLE C. COLLINS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant Missouri Home Therapy, LLC's ("Missouri Home Therapy") Motion to Dismiss. 1 (Doc. 5.) For the following reasons, Defendant Missouri Home Therapy's Motion to Dismiss will be DENIED, as moot. Defendant must file a response to the first Amended Complaint within seven (7) days. I. Background Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint in this Court on June 27, 2018. (Doc. 1.) In that Complain..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NOELLE C. COLLINS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Missouri Home Therapy, LLC's ("Missouri Home Therapy") Motion to Dismiss.1 (Doc. 5.) For the following reasons, Defendant Missouri Home Therapy's Motion to Dismiss will be DENIED, as moot. Defendant must file a response to the first Amended Complaint within seven (7) days.
I. Background
Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint in this Court on June 27, 2018. (Doc. 1.) In that Complaint, Plaintiff named Defendant Missouri Home Therapy, LLC only. (Id.) On July 17, 2018, before Missouri Home Therapy filed any responsive pleading, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 3.) In that First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff added a second Defendant, Missouri In Home Services, LLC ("Missouri In Home Services"). (Doc. 3.)
Counsel Christopher B. Bent formally entered his appearance on behalf of Missouri Home Therapy only on August 27, 2018. (Doc. 4.) Defendant filed the current Motion and Memorandum in Support on behalf of Missouri Home Therapy that same day. (Docs. 5, 6.) Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition on September 5, 2018 (Doc. 8), and Defendant filed a reply on September 12, 2018 (Doc. 9).
II. Analysis
Plaintiff timely filed her First Amended Complaint as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). The First Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint and renders it without legal effect. See Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938, 743 F.3d 1134, 1140 (8th Cir. 2014).
Therefore, Defendant Missouri Home Therapy needed to respond to the First Amended Complaint. However, Defendant did not do so. Instead, Defendant moved to dismiss the original Complaint. Even though Defendant Missouri Home Therapy filed its Motion and accompanying Memorandum in Support after the First Amended Complaint, they both pertain to the original Complaint. For example, Defendant cites to the original Complaint ("ECF No. 1") no fewer than six times throughout the Memorandum in Support, but never cites to the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 6 at 4, 5, 8.) In addition, Defendant states in its Motion that "it would be an exercise in futility for Plaintiff to amend her complaint" (Doc. 5 at 14), even though the complaint had already been amended. The Motion, entitled "Missouri Home Therapy's Motion to Dismiss," was made on behalf of the only Defendant named in the original Complaint. (Doc. 5.) Moreover, both the Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support include the caption (naming Defendant Missouri Home Therapy only) from the original Complaint instead of the updated caption from the First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 5, 6.) While this, alone, may not be enough to suggest the Motion was directed to the original Complaint, it lends further support to the conclusion that Defendant Missouri Home Therapy responded to the original Complaint.2
When an amended complaint is filed, motions pertaining to the original Complaint should be denied as moot. See Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002). See also Phoenix Entm't Partners, LLC v. Ryco Enters., LLC, 306 F.Supp.3d 1121, 1123 n.1 (E.D. Mo. 2018) (motion to dismiss rendered moot by filing of an amended complaint). Even though Defendant Missouri Home Therapy filed its Motion after the First Amended Complaint, Defendant moved to dismiss the original Complaint. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is denied as moot.
To date, Defendant Missouri Home Therapy has submitted no proper response to the First Amended Complaint. After Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. 8),3 Defendant filed a reply (Doc. 9). In that reply, Defendant revised the caption to be consistent with the First Amended Complaint, filed the reply on behalf of both named Defendants even though the initial Motion was made on behalf of Missouri Home Therapy only,4 and mentioned the "amended complaint" at one point. (Doc. 4. at 4.) While it appears that Defendant attempted to address the First Amended Complaint for the first time in its reply, it is procedurally improper to respond to a pleading with a reply. Instead, the rules contemplate a properly submitted answer or motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a), (b); see also Green v. Missouri, 734 F.Supp.2d 814, 848 (E.D. Mo. 2010) ("As a general rule, courts will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply") (citing Barham v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 441 F.3d 581, 584 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Missouri Home Therapy's response to the First Amended Complaint was due on August 27, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).5 In light of the denial of the Motion to Dismiss as moot, and in the interests of justice, Defendant must file a response to the First Amended Complaint within seven (7) days.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Missouri Home Therapy, LLC's ("Missouri Home Therapy") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is DENIED, as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Missouri Home Therapy, LLC, shall have until October 16, 2018, to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
