ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT METCALF'S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the "Motion to Dismiss Party Ronda Kaye Metcalf." Dkt. # 61. On March 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which substantively altered allegations against Metcalf, making clear that plaintiff is asserting claims against her in her individual capacity. Although the Court disagrees with plaintiff's contention that the filing of an amended complaint automatically moots a pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 64 at 1-2), in the circumstances presented here, at least some of the issues raised in the motion were impacted by the amendment. Metcalf offered arguments in reply that appropriately addressed the new allegations of the Second Amended Complaint but to which plaintiff had not opportunity to respond. The motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED as moot.

Plaintiff filed two responses to Metcalf's motion. Multiple response memoranda are not authorized by the local civil rules of this district. In addition, plaintiff's second, lengthier response violated LCR 10(e)(1). The twenty-three page memorandum is singlespaced in less than 12 point font. In addition, the number and length of footnotes was excessive, triggering the Court's discretion under LCR 7(e)(6) to ignore the information contained therein. In the future, memoranda that so clearly violate the rules of this district will be stricken.