HARRIS v. SALLIE MAE BANK
This text of HARRIS v. SALLIE MAE BANK (HARRIS v. SALLIE MAE BANK) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION VIRGIL E. HARRIS, JR, ) Plaintiff, vs. No. 1:23-cv-01475-JMS-MKK SALLIE MAE BANK, Defendant. ORDER Presently pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Sallie Mae Bank. [Filing No. 13.] In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, [Filing No. 21], which the Court granted, [Filing No. 26]. Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint. [Filing No. 27.] Plaintiff's Amended Complaint now controls this litigation and supersedes the pleading at which the Motion to Dismiss is directed. See Chasensky v. Walker, 740 F.3d 1088, 1094 (7th Cir. 2014) ("When a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the new complaint supersedes all previous complaints and controls the case from that point forward...[b]ecause a plaintiffs new complaint wipes away prior pleadings[.]") (citations omitted). Accordingly, the pending Motion to Dismiss, [13], is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant must answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Date: 2/1/2024 = one Mpa! CS: (Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
HARRIS v. SALLIE MAE BANK, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-sallie-mae-bank-insd-2024.