Mohler v. GEICO General Insurance Company ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TERESA L. MOHLER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE NO. 19-00864-BAJ-RLB COMPANY, ET AL, RULING AND ORDER Before the Court are Defendant Ashleigh Smothers’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 48), Defendant Progressive Security Insurance Company's Motion for Partial Dismissal for Failure to State A Claim (Doe. 49), Defendant B&R IOL, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Prescription (Doc. 55), and Defendant B&R IOL, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve Defendant (Doc. 64). For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motions (Doc. 48; Doc. 49; Doc. 55; Doc. 64) are DENIED AS MOOT. Since the filing of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 67). Courts vary in approach when a plaintiff amends her complaint while a Rule 12 motion is pending. See Melson v. Vista World Inc. & Assocs., No. CIV.A. 12-135, 2012 WL 6002680, at *12 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2012). Nonetheless, “many district courts — including those in this Circuit — routinely deny as moot motions to dismiss that are filed prior to an amendment of a complaint.” La. v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. CV 19-688-SDD-SDJ, 2020 WL 3966875, at *5 (M.D. La. July 18, 2020) (citing Garcia v. City of Amarillo, No. 2:18-CV-95-D-BR, 2018 WL 6272461, at *1 (N_D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:18-CV-095-D, 2018 WL 6268222 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 80, 2018), at *1 (fA]Jn amended complaint, which supersedes the original complaint as the operative live pleading, renders moot a motion to dismiss the original complaint.”); Xirta, LLC v. Int'l Ins. All. Inc., No. CIV.A.309-CV-2228-D, 2010 WL 1644895, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2010) (“Because [the plaintiff] has been granted leave to amend, [the defendant's] motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings are denied without prejudice as moot.”) (additional citations omitted)). While a court may apply a pending Rule 12 motion to a newly amended complaint, it should nonetheless deny the pending motion as moot if that application “would cause confusion or detract from the efficient resolution of the issues . □ .” Rodgers on Behalf of CJTJ v. Gusman, No. CV 16-163038, 2019 WL 186669 at *2 La. Jan. 14, 2019) (in that situation, “it makes sense to require the defendant to file a new motion specifically addressing the amended complaint.”). Here, Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint removes a previously named Defendant, names a new Defendant, and removes certain allegations “given the facts discovered to date and to streamline outstanding issues before the [C]ourt.” (Doc. 66, p. 1-2). To promote the efficient resolution of this matter, the Court will deny Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss as moot. The Court will permit certain Defendants to re-urge their Motions if, after thoroughly reviewing Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 68), Defendants still believe that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, as described below. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Progressive Security Insurance Company's Motion for Partial Dismissal for Failure to State A Claim (Doe. 49), Defendant B&R IOL, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Prescription (Doc. 55), and Defendant B&R IOL, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve Defendant (Doce. 64) are DENIED without prejudice AS MOOT. The parties may re-urge their Motions if, after thoroughly reviewing Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 68), Defendants still believe Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ashleigh Smothers’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 48) is DENIED AS MOOT because Plaintiff has failed to name Smothers in her Second Amended Complaint. A separate Order dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Smothers shall issue. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file any re-urged Motions to Dismiss on or before Friday, January 7, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Opposition to Progressive’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Claim (Doc. 56) is DENIED AS MOOT. jst Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this "`` day of December, 2021 Pu Sy “ JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA