Carrier v. Navika Capital Group, LLC
1:14-cv-00311
S.D. Ala.Mar 12, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint on July 8, 2014, naming multiple defendants; service was delayed and completed in January 2015 (Navika and Shah served Jan. 7; Silverstone served Jan. 28).
- Defendants moved to dismiss on January 28, 2015, asserting among other things untimely service of process.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 20, 2015 and a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal for plaintiff Markeisha Stokes the same day.
- The amended complaint substantially revised allegations against defendants, changed a defendant’s address, and removed one plaintiff — not merely a ministerial dismissal.
- Court analyzed timeliness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) and (B) and Rules 6(a) and 6(d), concluding the February 20 amendment was timely under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) as a matter of course.
- Because the amended complaint altered substantive claims, the pending motion to dismiss and the notice of dismissal as to Stokes were ruled moot; the proper vehicle for trimming claims or plaintiffs is amendment under Rule 15, not partial dismissal under Rule 41.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Feb. 20, 2015 amended complaint timely as of course under Rule 15? | The amendment was filed within the allowable period after defendants filed a Rule 12(b) motion. | Service dates made some defendants served earlier, so amendment window had closed for them under 15(a)(1)(A). | Timely under Rule 15(a)(1)(B): defendants’ Jan. 28 motion triggered a 21-day + 3-day rule 6 extension; amendment due Feb. 24; Feb. 20 filing is timely. |
| Did plaintiffs need leave of court to amend? | Not if amendment is within Rule 15(a)(1) time window. | Move to dismiss suggested procedural defects. | No leave required; amendment as of course was permitted. |
| Is the pending motion to dismiss still viable after amendment? | Amendment supersedes the original complaint and alters claims. | Defendants’ motion argued defects in original complaint (including service). | Motion to dismiss rendered moot by the amended complaint. |
| Is a partial voluntary dismissal (removing one plaintiff) proper under Rule 41? | Plaintiffs attempted to remove one plaintiff via Rule 41 notice. | Defendants cited Eleventh Circuit law that Rule 41 cannot be used to dismiss only part of an action. | Notice of dismissal as to Markeisha Stokes is moot because amendment (Rule 15) is the proper vehicle to eliminate particular claims/parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (Rule 15(a) favors allowing amendments to decide cases on the merits)
- In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 2014) (discussing liberal policy to permit amendments)
- Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004) (Rule 41 cannot be used to dismiss only particular claims within an action)
- Campbell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 605 F.3d 839 (11th Cir. 2010) (same principle limiting partial dismissals under Rule 41)
- IberiaBank v. Coconut 41, LLC, 984 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (reinforcing that amendment under Rule 15 is proper to eliminate particular claims)