Stone v. Midwest City-Del City School District, The

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

KAREN AND SHELDON STONE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-20-908-D ) MIDWEST CITY-DEL CITY PUBLIC ) SCHOOLDISTRICT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Application for Leave to Amend Complaint and Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6]. Upon consideration, the Court finds that it should be granted in part and denied in part, as set forth herein. Following the removal of this case to federal court, it is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1). Rule 15(a) provides in pertinent part: “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions less than 21 days ago on September 14, 2020. Therefore, even though Defendants may object to an amendment (see Mot., ¶ 4), the Court finds that Plaintiffs are authorized to file their proposed First Amended Complaint as a matter of right, by operation of Rule 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ original petition. Plaintiffs’ amended pleading “supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) Gnternal quotation omitted); see Predator Int’l, Inc. v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2015); Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007). Therefore, because Plaintiffs’ filing of their First Amended Complaint renders Defendants’ motions moot, there is no need to stay further briefing of the motions.! IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Application for Leave to Amend Complaint and Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs shall file their proposed First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 6-1] within 7 days from the date of this Order. No further briefing of Defendants’ motions is needed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 3 and 4] are DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, if appropriate, in response to the First Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2™ day of October, 2020.

\" Ny Ost TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

' In so holding, the Court expresses no opinion on the sufficiency of the First Amended Complaint to correct the alleged deficiencies raised by the motions.