Moss v. Carpenter

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

AMANDA MOSS, individually and as parent and next friend of McKenzie Cotton, a minor PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 2:23-cv-00022 KGB

CADEN ZANE CARPENTER, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court are separate defendants Kathy Woodall and Allen Woodall’s motion to dismiss, separate defendants Felecia Street Jones and Phillip Matthew Jones’s motion to withdraw service defenses, and plaintiff Amanda Moss, individually and as parent and next friend of McKenzie Cotton, a minor’s motion for leave to file amended complaint (Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, 32). Ms. Moss requests leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Local Rule 5.5(e) to add defendant Antoinette Woodall. Defendants have not objected to Ms. Moss’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and the time for doing so has passed. Accordingly, the Court grants Ms. Moss’s motion for leave to file amended complaint (Dkt. No. 32). Ms. Moss shall have 14 days from the date of this Order to file her amended complaint. Ms. and Mr. Woodall filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Moss’s original complaint, and Ms. and Mr. Jones filed a motion to withdraw their service defenses in their answer to the original complaint (Dkt. Nos. 8, 10). “[A]s a general proposition, if a defendant files a Motion to Dismiss, and the plaintiff later files an Amended Complaint, the amended pleading renders the defendant’s motion to dismiss moot.” Oniyah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 655 F. Supp. 2d 948, 958 (D. Minn. 2009) (citing Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002) (“If anything, [plaintiff’s] motion to amend the complaint rendered moot [defendant’s] motion to dismiss the original complaint.”); Standard Chlorine of Del., Inc. v. Sinibaldi, 821 F. Supp. 232, 239-40 (D. Del. 1992) (finding that plaintiffs filing of an amended complaint rendered defendant’s motion to dismiss moot)). Thus, under Eighth Circuit precedent, the Court’s granting of Ms. Moss’s motion for leave to amend renders moot defendants’ previously filed motions to dismiss and to withdraw (Dkt. Nos. 8, 10). Additionally, the filing of the amended complaint will provide Mr. and Ms. Jones the opportunity to file an answer to the amended complaint in which they can withdraw their service defenses. Accordingly, the Court denies as moot Ms. and Mr. Woodall’s pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 8) and Ms. and Mr. Jones’s motion to withdraw service defenses (Dkt. No. 10). So ordered this 8th day of January, 2024. Kush Palin Kfistine G. Baker Chief United States District Court Judge