Schudel v. Miller, 1:12-cv-01864

Plaintiff Jeffrey Schudel sues La Salle police officers Miller and Erazo and attorney Parrish in the District of Colorado, asserting Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment theories and abuse of process.
Plaintiff previously aligned with co-Plaintiff Timothy Stitt and asserted claims against the LaSalle Defendants in their official capacities; Stitt and related §1983 claims were later to be removed in the proposed Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint to eliminate Stitt, drop official-capacity claims, and retain three claims: unreasonable seizure, unreasonable search/seizure/malicious prosecution, and abuse of process.
The Scheduling Conference had not yet occurred, so the motion to amend was timely under Rule 15(a)(2).
The LaSalle Defendants argued the amendment would be futile, and severance should separate Parrish from the LaSalle Defendants; the proceedings were still early-stage with no dispositive rulings.
The court granted the motion to amend, denied as moot the motions to dismiss, and denied without prejudice the motion to sever.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Schudel amend the complaint?	Amendment should be allowed under Rule 15(a)(2).	Amendment would be futile; should be denied.	Amendment granted.
Should the Parrish claim be severed from the LaSalle claims?	Severance inappropriate given amended pleading.	Severance appropriate under Rule 20(a)(2) due to different transactions.	Denied without prejudice.
Do the pending motions to dismiss survive the amendment?	Motions remain relevant after amendment.	Motions become moot after amendment supersedes original complaint.	Motions to Dismiss denied as moot.

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend freely when justice requires)
McKinney v. Okla, 925 F.2d 363 (10th Cir. 1991) (prefer notice and opportunity to amend before dismissal)
Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Colo. 2006) (amended pleadings moots prior dismissals directed at superseded pleading)
Bradley v. Val-Mejias, 379 F.3d 892 (10th Cir. 2004) (futility is a consideration at motion to dismiss but early-stage pleading may be amended)