Order Granting Motions for Misjoinder and to Amend Complaint and Denying Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment as Moot

[ECF Nos. 19, 45, 60, 68, 70]

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

James D. Noland, Jr. brings this civil action for deceptive trade practices and racketeering against his former partners in Organo Gold Enterprises, Inc., a multi-level marketing company, and others he alleges they conspired with. Though this action is just a few months old, many motions are pending. I take this opportunity to resolve a number of those motions so that this case can move forward.

I. Motion for Misjoinder [ECF Nos. 60, 70]

Plaintiff Noland moves "for an order of misjoinder and dropping defendant Organo Gold International Inc., a Washington Corporation from the Case under Rule 21."1 He represents that this Washington entity is "a duplicate of" the Nevada corporation that is the first-named defendant in this case caption.2 No defendant opposes the request, and Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommends that I grant it and dismiss the claims against Organo Gold International, Inc., a Washington Corporation.3 The deadline to object to that report and recommendation passed without objection, and "no review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed."4 I adopt the report and recommendation,5 grant the motion for an order of misjoinder,6 and dismiss without prejudice all claims against this Washington entity.

II. Motion to amend complaint [ECF No. 68]

Noland also moves to amend and supplement his complaint.7 He includes a proposed first amended complaint with his request.8 The deadline to oppose the motion has passed. Three of the defendants filed notices of non-opposition,9 and no defendant has filed an opposition. Local Rule 7-2(d) states that "[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion."10 I deem the remaining parties' silence as their consent to granting this motion, and I grant Noland's motion to amend and supplement his complaint.11 Noland has 10 days to file the amended complaint in the format attached to his motion.12

III. Other motions mooted by amendment [ECF Nos. 19, 45]

An amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints and moots any motion directed at an earlier version of the complaint.13 Here, those motions are Holton and Earlene Buggs' Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint14 and Organo Gold International's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.15 Because these motions will be mooted by the filing of the amended complaint, I deny both without prejudice to their proponents' ability to file new motions directed at the amended complaint.

Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that