CRAIG v. CORNERSTONE TRADING GROUP, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

TUSHAWN CRAIG, ) MARQUETTA STOKES, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:23-cv-01575-TWP-MJD ) CORNERSTONE TRADING GROUP, LLC, ) SETH SMITH, ) CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, ) CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, ) ) Cross Claimants, ) ) v. ) ) CORNERSTONE TRADING GROUP, LLC, ) SETH SMITH, ) CORNERSTONE TRADING GROUP, LLC, ) SETH SMITH, ) MY-WAY TRADING, INC., ) ) Cross Defendants. ) ) ) CORNERSTONE TRADING GROUP, LLC, ) ) Third Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, ) ) Third Party Defendant. ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT SETH SMITH'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFFS

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Seth Smith's ("Smith") Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs (Filing No. 24). Plaintiffs Tushawn Craig and Marquetta Stokes (collectively, "Plaintiffs") initiated this action in state court against defendants Cornerstone Trading Group, LLC, Seth Smith ("Smith"), and the City of Richmond, Indiana ("City"), seeking damages arising from a fire that occurred (Filing No. 1-2). On September 1, 2023, the City removed this case to federal court (Filing No. 1). Following removal, Smith filed his pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 24). On March 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Filing No. 57), which the Court granted on April 22, 2024 (Filing No. 70). On April 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed its Second Amended Complaint (Filing No. 72). Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading in this matter. See Johnson v. Dossey, 515 F.3d 778, 780 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that an amended complaint becomes controlling once it is filed because the prior pleading is withdrawn by operation of law). Because the Second Amended Complaint supersedes the Original Complaint, Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 24) is DENIED as moot. See Keisler v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., No. 1:06-CV-912-JDT-WTL, 2007 WL 9752008, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2007) (noting that when a Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is directed at a prior

pleading, a good approach is to deny the motion as moot and without prejudice to the Defendant filing a new motion). As noted by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore, "the Court suggests that Smith take this opportunity to consider whether there might be additional issues [he] might wish to raise by summary judgment. If so, Smith should wait and raise all of the issues in one summary judgment motion. If not, Smith may renew his summary judgment motion." (Filing No. 70 at 3). SO ORDERED. Date: 5/28/2024 A ) + nw Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana DISTRIBUTION: Eric N Allen Allen Wellman McNew Harvey LLP ena@awmh.net Trevor J. Crossen CROSSEN LAW FIRM, LLC trevor@crossenlawfirm.com Benjamin D. Felton DYER GAROFALO MANN & SCHULTZ bfelton@dgmslaw.com Corwin Scott Marcum Allen Wellman McNew Harvey, LLP csm@awmh.net Andrew M. McNeil BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP (Indianapolis) amcneil@boselaw.com Jackson Lee Schroeder Bose McKinney & Evans LLP jschroeder@boselaw.com Brad R. Sugarman BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP (Indianapolis) bsugarman@boselaw.com Seth M. Thomas BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP (Indianapolis) sthomas@boselaw.com Jacob Scott Troxell Allen Wellman Harvey Keyes Cooley, LLP jst@awmlaw.com

Gina M. Vuotto CROSSEN LAW FIRM LLC gina@crossenlawfirm.com

Dawn Elizabeth Wellman ALLEN WELLMAN MCNEW dew@awmlaw.com