New Covenant Church, Inc. v. Armstrong

Opinion

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Brunswick Division

NEW COVENANT CHURCH, INC., CARLOS L. WILLIAMS, FELICIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of others similarly No. 2:19—CV-40 situated, CATHERINE ARMSTRONG, and CYNTHIA NELSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARLA FUTCH, S. FERGUSON, SAMANTHA SPAULDING, CHAD HENLEY, and RICKY JACK HALL, in their individual and official capacities as Police Officers for the City of Brunswick, Georgia;

Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiffs initiated this action on March 15, 2019 in Glynn County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1-1. Defendants removed the action to this Court on March 21, 2019. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint four times. Dkt. Nos. 12, 58, 67, 71. Before the last amendment, which was only for the purpose of substituting named Defendant Ricky Hall for the “one unknown officer,” Defendants moved to dismiss any class claims Plaintiffs might attempt to assert. Dkt. No. 68. In their Answer to the most recently amended complaint, Defendants state: Because Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to add Hall was not mooted by the filing of an amended (but, with respect to Hall, substantively unchanged) pleading, Defendants assume that the Court likewise will not consider their motion to dismiss class claims to have been mooted by the filing of an amended (but substantively identical) pleading. Both for the reasons set forth in Defendants’ motion, and on the basis that the motion is unopposed, that motion should be granted. In the event that the Court does consider the filing of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint to have mooted Defendants’ motion to dismiss class claims, Defendants hereby renew and republish that motion with respect to the Fourth Amended Complaint.

Dkt. No. 72 at 4. The Court will now address Defendants’ motion to dismiss class claims. Dkt. No. 68. LEGAL STANDARD Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after the time for amending a pleading as a matter of course has passed, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” An amended pleading “supersedes the former pleading” such that “the original pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the pleader's averments against his adversary.” Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted) (“Under the Federal Rules, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.”). DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs obtained the Court’s consent to amend their complaint for the fourth time. Dkt. No. 70. As such, Plaintiffs’ latest amended complaint, dkt. no. 71, supersedes their previously filed amended complaint, dkt. no. 67. Defendants’ motion to dismiss class claims, dkt. no. 68, has thus been rendered moot by Plaintiffs’ filing of their amended complaint. See S. Pilot Ins. Co. v. CECS, Inc., 15 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1287 (N.D. Ga.), order clarified on other grounds, 15 F. Supp. 3d 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (citing Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006); Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982)). Defendants’ assumption that they should not have to renew their motion to dismiss via a new

filing is, thus, mistaken. Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs’ latest amendment is different from the previously filed complaint only with respect to Defendant Hall being substituted for the unnamed defendant. Defendants are also correct that Plaintiffs filed no response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss class claims before the time for doing so had expired. As such, the Court finds it appropriate, under the circumstances, to grant Defendants leave to amend their response to Plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint, dkt. no. 71. Any responsive motion must be filed as a separate entry upon the docket. Defendants should file any amended response within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. CONCLUSION Defendants’ motion to dismiss class claims, dkt. no. 68, is DENIED as moot. Defendants have ten (10) days to amend their response to Plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint. SO ORDERED, this 16th day of June, 2020.

a: x G WOOD, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA