Smith v. Credit Pros International, LLC

E.D. Michigan

Smith v. Credit Pros International, LLC

DecidedNovember 3, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-11582

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Credit Pros International, LLC (Smith v. Credit Pros International, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Credit Pros International, LLC, (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN K. SMITH,

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 23-11582 v. Honorable Linda V. Parker

CREDIT PROS INTERNANTIONAL, LLC,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on June 30, 2023, alleging that Defendant violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679. On August 23, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint on September 13, 2023. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff did not need to seek leave of the Court to amend her Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides in relevant part: A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: … (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff filed his motion seeking leave to amend his Complaint within twenty-one days after service of Defendant’s Rule 12(b) motion.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion must be granted pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint supersedes his original pleading to which Defendant’s motion to dismiss is directed. As such, Defendant’s motion to dismiss

is moot. See Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (citing cases). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 11) is

GRANTED and Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of this Opinion and Order; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF

No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: November 3, 2023

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN K. SMITH,

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 23-11582 v. Honorable Linda V. Parker

CREDIT PROS INTERNANTIONAL, LLC,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on June 30, 2023, alleging that Defendant violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679. On August 23, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint on September 13, 2023. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff did not need to seek leave of the Court to amend her Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides in relevant part: A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: … (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff filed his motion seeking leave to amend his Complaint within twenty-one days after service of Defendant’s Rule 12(b) motion.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion must be granted pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint supersedes his original pleading to which Defendant’s motion to dismiss is directed. As such, Defendant’s motion to dismiss

is moot. See Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (citing cases). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 11) is

GRANTED and Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of this Opinion and Order; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF

No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: November 3, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Credit Pros International, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-credit-pros-international-llc-mied-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack