HOLLEY v. COOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

M.D. Georgia

HOLLEY v. COOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, M.D. Georgia·Decided August 14, 2025·No. 7:25-cv-00041·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

COURTNEY HOLLEY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-00041 (WLS) : COOK COUNTY SCHOOL : DISTRICT, et al., : : Defendants. : : ORDER Previously, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 11), which the Court granted on July 7, 2025. (See Doc. 12.) Instead of filing a response to the Defendants’ pending motions (Docs. 9 & 10), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) on July 28, 2025, more than twenty-one days after Defendants’ motions were filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) & 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)[.]”). Under Rule 15(a)(2), after the period in which a pleading may be amended as a matter of course has passed, as is the case here, a Party may amend a pleading only by leave of the Court or with the consent of the opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Because leave to amend is to be given freely, the Court construes Plaintiff’s amendment as a motion to amend and finds that leave to amend is appropriate here.1 Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED, Plaintiff may amend her complaint. Because Plaintiff has amended her complaint, as authorized by the Court, Defendants’ first two Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 9 & 10) are DENIED, without prejudice, as moot. See,

1 A review of the Docket shows that Defendants filed new motions to dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (See Docs. 14 & 15.) In light of this, granting Plaintiff leave to amend will not result in any prejudice to Defendants. e.g., Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that an amended complaint supersedes the previous pleading). SO ORDERED, this 14th day of August 2025. /s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

COURTNEY HOLLEY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-00041 (WLS) : COOK COUNTY SCHOOL : DISTRICT, et al., : : Defendants. : : ORDER Previously, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 11), which the Court granted on July 7, 2025. (See Doc. 12.) Instead of filing a response to the Defendants’ pending motions (Docs. 9 & 10), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) on July 28, 2025, more than twenty-one days after Defendants’ motions were filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) & 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)[.]”). Under Rule 15(a)(2), after the period in which a pleading may be amended as a matter of course has passed, as is the case here, a Party may amend a pleading only by leave of the Court or with the consent of the opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Because leave to amend is to be given freely, the Court construes Plaintiff’s amendment as a motion to amend and finds that leave to amend is appropriate here.1 Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED, Plaintiff may amend her complaint. Because Plaintiff has amended her complaint, as authorized by the Court, Defendants’ first two Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 9 & 10) are DENIED, without prejudice, as moot. See,

1 A review of the Docket shows that Defendants filed new motions to dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (See Docs. 14 & 15.) In light of this, granting Plaintiff leave to amend will not result in any prejudice to Defendants. e.g., Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that an amended complaint supersedes the previous pleading). SO ORDERED, this 14th day of August 2025. /s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

HOLLEY v. COOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

HOLLEY v. COOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (HOLLEY v. COOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related