Washington v. Oklahoma City City of

W.D. Oklahoma

Washington v. Oklahoma City City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma·Decided May 13, 2020·No. 5:20-cv-00266·Unknown

Opinion

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

MICHAEL C. WASHINGTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Case No. CIV-20-266-D CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michael C. Washington’s Motion to Amend [Doc. No. 35]. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to amend his original pleading, filed in state court, to name the correct defendants. “[T]he grant of leave to amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) is within the discretion of the trial court.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). Rule 15 states that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). The purpose of the Rule is to provide litigants “the maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties.” Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). Considered under this standard and for good cause shown, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Having granted the motion, the pending motions to dismiss the original pleading are moot. See, e.g., Essex Ins. Co. v. Sheppard & Sons Constr., Inc., No. CIV-12-1022-D, 2015 WL 11752917, at *10 (W.D. Okla. July 9, 2015) (denying “[a defendant’s] motion to dismiss as moot due to filing of amended complaint which supersedes original complaint and renders it of no legal effect’); Strich v. United States, 2010 WL 14826, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2010) (“The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd. v. Zarda Bar-B-Q of Lenexa, LLC, 2009 WL 1140185, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that an amended complaint superseded an original complaint and “accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint [was] denied as moot”); accord Baca v. Quick Bail Bond & Tax Serv., No. CV 18-16 JCH/GBW, 2018 WL 3862744, at *1 (D.N.M. Aug. 14, 2018). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [Doc. No. 35] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the issuance of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 13— 19] are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13" day of May, 2020.

Nd, Q: Oy Q: uae 4, TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

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

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

MICHAEL C. WASHINGTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Case No. CIV-20-266-D CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michael C. Washington’s Motion to Amend [Doc. No. 35]. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to amend his original pleading, filed in state court, to name the correct defendants. “[T]he grant of leave to amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) is within the discretion of the trial court.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). Rule 15 states that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). The purpose of the Rule is to provide litigants “the maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties.” Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). Considered under this standard and for good cause shown, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Having granted the motion, the pending motions to dismiss the original pleading are moot. See, e.g., Essex Ins. Co. v. Sheppard & Sons Constr., Inc., No. CIV-12-1022-D, 2015 WL 11752917, at *10 (W.D. Okla. July 9, 2015) (denying “[a defendant’s] motion to dismiss as moot due to filing of amended complaint which supersedes original complaint and renders it of no legal effect’); Strich v. United States, 2010 WL 14826, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2010) (“The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd. v. Zarda Bar-B-Q of Lenexa, LLC, 2009 WL 1140185, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that an amended complaint superseded an original complaint and “accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint [was] denied as moot”); accord Baca v. Quick Bail Bond & Tax Serv., No. CV 18-16 JCH/GBW, 2018 WL 3862744, at *1 (D.N.M. Aug. 14, 2018). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [Doc. No. 35] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the issuance of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 13— 19] are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13" day of May, 2020.

Nd, Q: Oy Q: uae 4, TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Washington v. Oklahoma City City of, (W.D. Okla. 2020).

Pincite

Washington v. Oklahoma City City of (Washington v. Oklahoma City City of) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related