(“Though no appellate case appears to address whether all responsive pleadings are tolled when only a partial motion to dismiss is filed, district courts are in clear alignment on the matter.”) (collecting cases); Kent v. Geren, No. 07-cv-02202-ZLW-MJW, 2008 WL 150060, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2008) (holding that filing of a partial Rule 12 motion tolled the responsive pleading deadline until notice of the court's action on that motion)

Rule 12(a)(4)(A) also applies in circumstances where, as here, a defendant files a motion to dismiss that is only partially dispositive. See Compton v. City of Harrodsburg, 287 F.R.D. 401 (E.D. Ky. 2012); Sun v. Rickenbacker Collections, 5:10-cv-1055, 2012 WL 2838782, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2012); Talbot v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., 2:11-cv-1766, 2012 WL 1068763, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2012) (collecting cases holding that a partial motion to dismiss tolls the time to respond under Rule 12(a)(4)); Kent v. Geren, 07-cv-2202, 2008 WL 150060 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2008); 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1346 (3d ed.). Considering the current posture of the case, defendants American Red Cross and McCord were required to file a response to the Amended Complaint within fourteen days of the Court's March 19, 2013 resolution of their partial motion to dismiss.

ThermoLife Intern., LLC v. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., 2011 WL 6296833 (D.Ariz.) (even when a pending motion to dismiss may only address some of the alleged claims, the motion to dismiss tolls the time to respond to all claims under Rule 12(a)(4)); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 353, 366 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (finding that requiring a party to reply to claims not the subject of a partial motion to dismiss would result in a “procedural thicket of piecemeal answers that would poorly serve judicial economy”); Kent v. Geren, 2008 WL 150060 (D.Colo.) (finding that partially dispositive Rule 12 motion altered responsive pleading date under Rule 12(a)(4)); Beaulieu v. Board of Trustees of University of West Florida, 2007 WL 2020161 (N.D.Fla.)

Cir. City Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. , 1994 WL 483463, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 1994) (denying motion for default judgment because "a partial 12(b) motion enlarges the time to file an answer"); accord Dotson v. DISH Network, L.L.C. , 2019 WL 3483806, at *3 (S.D. Ga. July 31, 2019) (same); Iraheta v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC , 2018 WL 3381419, at *2-3 (W.D. La. July 10, 2018) (same); Neal v. Neal , 2018 WL 1335985, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 15, 2018) (same), aff'd , 745 F. App'x 683 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 66, 205 L.Ed.2d 43 (2019) ; Fed. Contracting, Inc. v. United States , 128 Fed. Cl. 788, 797-98 (2016) ; Talbot v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. , 2012 WL 1068763, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2012) (same); Thermolife Int'l LLC v. Gaspari Nutrition Inc. , 2011 WL 6296833, at *5 (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2011) (same); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc. , 257 F.R.D. 353, 366 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (same); Kent v. Geren , 2008 WL 150060, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2008) (same); Beaulieu v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of W. Fla. , 2007 WL 2020161, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jul. 9, 2007) (same); Shah v. KIK Int'l LLC , 2007 WL 1876449, at *1 (N.D. Ind. June 26, 2007) (same); Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc. , 434 F. Supp. 2d 598, 638-39 (N.D. Iowa 2006) (same); Bertaut v. Par. of Jefferson , 2002 WL 31528468, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2002) (same); Batdorf v. Trans Union , 2000 WL 635455, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2000) (same); Finnegan v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr. , 180 F.R.D. 247, 249-50 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (same); Oil Express Nat'l, Inc. v. D'Alessandro , 173 F.R.D. 219, 220-21 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (same); Brocksopp Eng'g, Inc. v. Bach-Simpson Ltd. , 136 F.R.D. 485, 486-87 (E.D. Wis. 1991) (same); Bus. Incentives Co. v. Sony Corp. of Am. , 397 F. Supp. 63, 64-65 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (same); see also 5B Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1346 & n.18 (3d ed. 2020) (characterizing these cases as the "majority" and explaining their reaso