Opinion
CASE NO. CV410-242.
June 1, 2011
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants' `Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6)," which was filed on November 12, 2010. (Doc. 6.) On December 13, 2010, Plaintiff simultaneously filed her response in opposition (Doc. 16) and Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Doc. 15). The latter included a sixteen-page first amended complaint, which is more than twice as long as the original complaint. (Doc. 1; Doc. 15, Attach. 1.) Magistrate Judge Smith granted Plaintiff's request to amend her complaint on December 29, 2010. (Doc. 19.) Defendants filed an answer on January 12, 2011.
Because Defendants' motion was based on a complaint that has since been substantially modified, Defendants' motion is DISMISSED AS MOOT. See Renal Treatment Ctrs. — Mid-Atl., Inc. v. Franklin Chevrolet-Cadillac-Pontiac-GMC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30975, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 2009) (unpublished) (declining to address a motion to dismiss and categorizing it as `entirely irrelevant" where, subsequent to the motion's filing, the plaintiff successfully amended its complaint). Based on a recent filing, Defendants apparently consider their Motion to Dismiss to be "still pending." (Doc. 25 ¶ 2.) Therefore, at the option of Defendants, a renewed motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff's first amended complaint may be filed within fourteen days of this order.
SO ORDERED.