Opinion
19-cv-2547 (ECT/TNL)
07-26-2021
Malik Laughlin, et al., Plaintiffs, v. James Stuart, et al., Defendants.
Malik Laughlin, Kenneth Lewis, and Michael Hari, (pro se Plaintiffs); Robert I. Yount, Assistant Anoka County Attorney, (for Defendants James Stuart, Jonathon Evans, Lt. Sheila Larson, Sgt. Carrie Wood, and Jesse Rasmussen); and Gary K. Luloff and Jennifer J. Crancer, (for Defendant Tessa Villegas).
Malik Laughlin, Kenneth Lewis, and Michael Hari, (pro se Plaintiffs);
Robert I. Yount, Assistant Anoka County Attorney, (for Defendants James Stuart, Jonathon Evans, Lt. Sheila Larson, Sgt. Carrie Wood, and Jesse Rasmussen); and Gary K. Luloff and Jennifer J. Crancer, (for Defendant Tessa Villegas).
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge District of Minnesota
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Tessa Villegas's (“Villegas”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 248). This motion has been referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation to the district court, the Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and D. Minn. LR 72.1.
Since the filing of this motion, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 303.) Plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 311.) In response, Villegas filed a motion to dismiss the now operative Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 321.) She has not withdrawn her original motion to dismiss.
“Ordinarily the filing of an amended complaint renders moot a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the original complaint.” Crandall v. Miller & Stevens, P.A., No. 20-cv-1793 (ECT/LIB), 2020 WL 6158214, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2020) (citing Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002)). On occasion, particularly where the parties agree to the approach, a court will construe a pending motion as the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. See Manos v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 18-cv-427 (PJS/HB), 2019 WL 1494604, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 11, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1491789 (D. Minn. Apr. 4, 2019).
The record supports denying Villegas's original motion as moot and proceeding on her more recent motion. Villegas would not be prejudiced by the denial of the original motion, as she has already filed second motion to dismiss in response to the now-operative complaint. (ECF No. 321.) The motion has been fully briefed for the Court's review. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 323, 339, 349.) The Court finds that denying the original motion as moot is the best course of action for this case.
Therefore, based upon the record, memoranda, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT Defendant Tessa Villegas's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 248) be DENIED AS MOOT.
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set for in LR 72.2(c).