Ronald H. Foster v. Author Success Publishing, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

RONALD H. FOSTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-545-BL-JTA ) (WO) AUTHOR SUCCESS PUBLISHING, et ) al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court1 is Plaintiff Ronald H. Foster’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 79.) Also before the court are numerous other pending motions. (Docs. No. 73, 81, 86, 91, 96, 99, 101.) Upon consideration of the motion for leave to amend the complaint, the lack of opposition to the motion, Plaintiff’s reply in support of the motion (Doc. No. 87), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)’s requirement that leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires, the motion for leave to amend is due to be granted. Further, because the second amended complaint supersedes the first amended complaint, the remaining motions2 are due to be denied without prejudice as moot. See Smith v. Franklin, No. 2:24-cv-361-JTA, 2024 WL 4438317, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 7,

1 On July 22, 2025, this action was referred to the undersigned “for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate.” (Doc. No. 9.)

2 The remaining motions concern the following issues: the merits of Plaintiff’s first amended Complaint (Docs. No. 73, 81, 86), the time for answering or otherwise responding to the first amended complaint (Doc. No. 91), perfecting service of the first amended complaint (Doc. No. 96), and expediting the rulings on the pending motions (Docs. No. 99, 101). 2024); Kelly v. Elite Roofing, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-388-MHT-JTA, 2024 WL 4993858, at *4 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 5, 2024). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The motion (Doc. No. 79) is GRANTED. 2. To allow the undersigned to review the second amended complaint (Doc. No. 79-3) to ensure it complies with the directives of the United States District Judge against filing a shotgun complaint, Plaintiff shall not attempt service on Defendants until so ordered, and Defendants shall not answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint until so ordered. 3. The remaining motions (Docs. No. 73, 81, 86, 91, 96, 99, 101) are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Doc. No. 79-3 as Plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to withhold issuance of summonses pending review of the second amended complaint. DONE this 11th day of May, 2026.

rag ae JERUSHA T. ADAMS UNIVED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE