Moore v. Czarnowski Display Service, Inc.

Full title: TRACY L. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. CZARNOWSKI DISPLAY SERVICE, INC., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 22, 2009

Civil Action No. 08-1637 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-1637.

January 22, 2009

ORDER

CATHY BISSOON[fn1], Magistrate Judge [fn1] By consent of the parties, the undersigned sits as the District Judge in this case. See Consent forms (Docs. 10 11).

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 23, 2008. See Doc. 5. Plaintiff has timely filed an opposition brief (Doc. 14) responding to Defendant's Motion and requesting "permission" to amend her pleadings. See id. at 2 n. 1; id. at 3 n. 2; and id. at 11 n. 7; see also Pl.'s proposed am. compl. (attached as Ex. to Pl.'s Opp'n Br.).

In this instance, Plaintiff does not need permission to file an amended complaint. "[When] a defendant asserts the defense of failure to state a claim by motion, the plaintiff may amend the complaint once `as a matter of course' without leave of court."Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted, quotations in original). Given Plaintiff's obvious desire to amend, she hereby is ORDERED to file her amended complaint by January 26, 2009 .

Once Plaintiff files her amended complaint, the Court will enter an order: denying as moot Defendant's current Motion to Dismiss²; denying as moot Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief ( see Doc. 15); directing Defendant to respond to the amended complaint; and rescheduling the Case Management Conference now set for February 18, 2009.

2 See generally Demeter v. Buskirk, 2003 WL 22416045, *5 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2003) (proper filing of amended complaint renders moot previously filed motions to dismiss).

IT IS SO ORDERED.