Isom v. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice

M.D. Louisiana

Isom v. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice

DecidedJuly 13, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-00013

StatusUnknown

This text of Isom v. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice (Isom v. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Isom v. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice, (M.D. La. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

AURLISA ISOM CIVIL ACTION VERSUS LOUISIANA OFFICE OF NO. 21-00013-BAJ-SDJ JOVENILE JUSTICE, ET AL. ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. 9). The Motion 1s opposed. (Doc. 18). On July 2, 2021, Plamtiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. See (Doc. 24). Plaintiff subsequently filed her amended complaint. (Doc. 25). Courts vary in approach when a plaintiff amends her complaint while a Rule 12 motion is pending. See Melson v. Vista World Inc. & Assocs., No. CIV.A. 12-135, 2012 WL 6002680, at *12 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2012). Nonetheless, “many district courts—including those in this Circuit--routinely deny as moot motions to dismiss that are filed prior to an amendment of a complaint.” La. v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. CV 19-6388-SDD-SDJ, 2020 WL 3966875, at *5 (M.D. La. July 18, 2020) (citing Garcia v. City of Amarillo, Tex., No, 2:18-CV-95-D-BR, 2018 WL 6272461, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:18-CV-095-D, 2018 WL 6268222 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018), at *1 (“[A]n amended complaint, which supersedes the original complaint as

the operative live pleading, renders moot a motion to dismiss the original complaint.”); Xtria, LLC v. Int'l Ins, All. Inc., No. CIV.A.309-CV-2228-D, 2010 WL 1644895, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2010) (“Because [the plaintiff] has been granted leave to amend, [the defendant's] motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings are denied without prejudice as moot.”) (additional citations omitted)). While a court may apply a pending Rule 12 motion to a newly amended complaint, it should nonetheless deny the pending motion as moot if that application “would cause confusion or detract from the efficient resolution of the issues.” Rodgers on Behalf of CITY v. Gusman, No. CV 16-163803, 2019 WL 186669 at *2 (H.D. La. Jan. 14, 2019) (In that situation, “it makes sense to require the defendant to file a new motion specifically addressing the amended complaint.”). Here, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint was filed with the intent of addressing and potentially remedying the issues raised in the pending motion to dismiss. See (Doe. 24, p. 8 at n. 12). To promote the efficient resolution of this matter, the Court will deny Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss as moot. (Doc. 9). The Court will permit Defendants to re-urge their Motion if, after thoroughly reviewing the comprehensive version of the Amended Complaint, Defendants still believe Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. Accordingly,

°

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 9) is DENIED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this day of July, 2021 od Oe a em JUDGE BRIA NA. J} CKSON UNITED STATES-DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

AURLISA ISOM CIVIL ACTION VERSUS LOUISIANA OFFICE OF NO. 21-00013-BAJ-SDJ JOVENILE JUSTICE, ET AL. ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. 9). The Motion 1s opposed. (Doc. 18). On July 2, 2021, Plamtiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. See (Doc. 24). Plaintiff subsequently filed her amended complaint. (Doc. 25). Courts vary in approach when a plaintiff amends her complaint while a Rule 12 motion is pending. See Melson v. Vista World Inc. & Assocs., No. CIV.A. 12-135, 2012 WL 6002680, at *12 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2012). Nonetheless, “many district courts—including those in this Circuit--routinely deny as moot motions to dismiss that are filed prior to an amendment of a complaint.” La. v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. CV 19-6388-SDD-SDJ, 2020 WL 3966875, at *5 (M.D. La. July 18, 2020) (citing Garcia v. City of Amarillo, Tex., No, 2:18-CV-95-D-BR, 2018 WL 6272461, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:18-CV-095-D, 2018 WL 6268222 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018), at *1 (“[A]n amended complaint, which supersedes the original complaint as

the operative live pleading, renders moot a motion to dismiss the original complaint.”); Xtria, LLC v. Int'l Ins, All. Inc., No. CIV.A.309-CV-2228-D, 2010 WL 1644895, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2010) (“Because [the plaintiff] has been granted leave to amend, [the defendant's] motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings are denied without prejudice as moot.”) (additional citations omitted)). While a court may apply a pending Rule 12 motion to a newly amended complaint, it should nonetheless deny the pending motion as moot if that application “would cause confusion or detract from the efficient resolution of the issues.” Rodgers on Behalf of CITY v. Gusman, No. CV 16-163803, 2019 WL 186669 at *2 (H.D. La. Jan. 14, 2019) (In that situation, “it makes sense to require the defendant to file a new motion specifically addressing the amended complaint.”). Here, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint was filed with the intent of addressing and potentially remedying the issues raised in the pending motion to dismiss. See (Doe. 24, p. 8 at n. 12). To promote the efficient resolution of this matter, the Court will deny Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss as moot. (Doc. 9). The Court will permit Defendants to re-urge their Motion if, after thoroughly reviewing the comprehensive version of the Amended Complaint, Defendants still believe Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. Accordingly,

°

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 9) is DENIED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this day of July, 2021 od Oe a em JUDGE BRIA NA. J} CKSON UNITED STATES-DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Isom v. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isom-v-louisiana-office-of-juvenile-justice-lamd-2021.