Alexander v. Bridgerland Technical College et al, No. 1:2020cv00079 - Document 25 (D. Utah 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Amend the Complaint, and denying as moot Defendants' 7 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint attached to his motion within te n days of the date of this Order. Defendants may file a new motion to dismiss in relation to the Amended Complaint within 14 days of the filing of the Amended Complaint, if the alleged grounds for doing so still exist. The court would prefer for the briefing on the motion to dismiss to reflect the operative complaint. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 9/3/2020. (eat)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alexander v. Bridgerland Technical College et al Doc. 25 Case 1:20-cv-00079-DAK-DAO Document 25 Filed 09/03/20 PageID.286 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH STEPHEN C. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. Case No. 1:20CV79DAK BRIDGERLAND TECHNICAL COLLEGE, ET AL., Judge Dale A. Kimball Defendant. On July 2, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint and a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Defendants have not filed an opposition to the Motion to Amend or a reply memorandum in support of their Motion to Dismiss. However, in an effort to facilitate a timely and appropriate resolution of the competing motions, the court enters the following order. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff was entitled to file the Amended Complaint as a matter of course within 21 days of Defendant’s motion under FRCP 12(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Although Plaintiff received an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s motion, the court considers Plaintiff’s request to amend as timely. The amendment to Rule 15 allowing a party to amend as a matter of course in response to a motion to dismiss was enacted to prevent overlapping motions to dismiss and motions to amend. The court does not want to address issues that may be moot in light of the Amended Complaint. By Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00079-DAK-DAO Document 25 Filed 09/03/20 PageID.287 Page 2 of 2 allowing Plaintiff to file this Amended Complaint, the parties and court can then focus on only the issues that may survive amendment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall filed the Amended Complaint attached to his motion within ten days of the date of this Order. Accordingly, the court concludes that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is moot because it was filed in relation to the original Complaint. Defendant may file a new motion to dismiss in relation to the Amended Complaint within 14 days of the filing of the Amended Complaint, if the alleged grounds for doing so still exist. The court would prefer for the briefing on the motion to dismiss to reflect the operative complaint. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. DATED this 3rd day of September, 2020. BY THE COURT: DALE A. KIMBALL United States District Judge
]]>
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.
