Coates v. Ford Motor Company et al
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN MILLENTINE COATES, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and XYZ CORPORATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2018-35 ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Robert L. King The King Law Firm, P.C. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Millentine Coates, Daryl C. Barnes Paul R. Neil Barnes & Neil, LLP Christiansted, U.S.V.I. Courtney M. King Scott A. Richman Jessica M. Kennedy McDonald Toole Wiggins P.A. Orlando, FL For Ford Motor Company. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. Before the Court is the motion of Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) to dismiss all claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). A brief outline of the relevant procedural history is necessary before the Court can address Ford’s motion to dismiss. Case: 3:18-cv-00035-RAM-RM Document #: 60 Filed: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 3 Coates v. Ford Motor Company Civil No. 2018–35 Order On March 12, 2018, Coates filed a complaint against Ford and XYZ Corporation in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. On June 6, 2018, Ford removed the action to this Court. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_18-cv-00035/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_18-cv-00035-1.pdf
SHA-256 4b706040de010c1f35d876b2830c61625b33df8b3a4a43e45d917d7f13f9d9b8
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-4b706040de01
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN MILLENTINE COATES, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and XYZ CORPORATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2018-35 ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Robert L. King The King Law Firm, P.C. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Millentine Coates, Daryl C. Barnes Paul R. Neil Barnes & Neil, LLP Christiansted, U.S.V.I. Courtney M. King Scott A. Richman Jessica M. Kennedy McDonald Toole Wiggins P.A. Orlando, FL For Ford Motor Company. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. Before the Court is the motion of Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) to dismiss all claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). A brief outline of the relevant procedural history is necessary before the Court can address Ford’s motion to dismiss. Case: 3:18-cv-00035-RAM-RM Document #: 60 Filed: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 3 Coates v. Ford Motor Company Civil No. 2018–35 Order On March 12, 2018, Coates filed a complaint against Ford and XYZ Corporation in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. On June 6, 2018, Ford removed the action to this Court. On June 27, 2018, Ford moved to dismiss Coates’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On June 28, 2018, Ford refiled its motion to dismiss. On August 20, 2018, Coates filed a motion to amend her complaint, which the Magistrate Judge granted. On September 20, 2018, Coates filed an amended complaint. Since then, Ford has filed a renewed motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction. That renewed motion is directed at the amended complaint. In light of that procedural history, as a threshold matter, the Court must determine which complaint in this matter is operative. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (“Rule 15”) governs the amendment of complaints. Rule 15, in relevant part, states: (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (B) . . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. (2) Other Amendments. 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). Case: 3:18-cv-00035-RAM-RM Document #: 60 Filed: 03/29/19 Page 2 of 3 Coates v. Ford Motor Company Civil No. 2018–35 Order Here, Coates moved for leave to file an amended complaint after Ford filed its motion to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge granted Coates’s motion. On September 20, 2018, Coates filed her amended complaint. As such, the amended complaint was properly filed with leave of Court. Thus, as of September 20, 2018, the amended complaint became the operative complaint. Where, as here, a defendant files a motion to dismiss and the plaintiff subsequently properly files an amended complaint, that subsequent pleading is operative and “render[s] moot [the] defendant[’s] motion[] to dismiss.” See Merritt v. Fogel, 349 Fed. App’x 742, 745 (3d Cir. 2009). The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that Ford’s motions to dismiss, ECF No. 5 and ECF No. 6, are MOOT. S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge Case: 3:18-cv-00035-RAM-RM Document #: 60 Filed: 03/29/19 Page 3 of 3