Gallahue et al v. United States of America et al, No. 3:2016cv00242 - Document 20 (W.D. Ky. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 8/3/2016. For the reasons set forth, Plaintiffs' 11 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED, and Defendant Roman Catholic Bishop of Louisville's 10 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED as moot. The proposed Amended Complaint tendered with that Motion is deemed FILED. cc: Counsel(RLK)

Download PDF
Gallahue et al v. United States of America et al Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE RICHARD GALLAHUE, JR. and CHRISTEENA GALLAHUE Individually and as Parents and Next Friend of “R.J.,” a minor child v. PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00242-CRS LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF LOUISVILLE; and UNKNOWN PARENTS OF MINOR CHILDREN DEFENDANTS Memorandum Opinion and Order Richard Gallahue, Jr. and Christeena Gallahue (the “Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit on behalf of their minor child, “R.J.” Compl. 1, ECF No. 1-1. On May 26, 2016, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Louisville1 moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 10. On June 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint. Mot. Am., ECF No. 11. Rule 15 governs amendments. “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within … 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The complaint and the proposed amended complaint name this defendant “Roman Catholic Bishop of Louisville.” The party moving to dismiss is the “Roman Catholic Bishop of Louisville.” The proper defendant may be the Archdiocese of Louisville or Archbishop Joseph Kurtz. See www.archlou.org. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com The Plaintiffs move for leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2). See, e.g., Pl.’s Mot. Am. ¶ 6, ECF No. 11 (arguing that the Court should freely give leave to amend). However, as the government points out, the Plaintiffs had a right to amend the complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of receiving the motion to dismiss. See Mot. Ext. Time ¶ 3, ECF No. 16. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs had a right to amend their complaint as a matter of course. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint (DN 11). The proposed amended complaint tendered with that motion is deemed FILED in this action (DN 11-1). The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as moot (DN 10). August 3, 2016 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.