United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
February 18, 2015
ERIE OPERATING, LLC d/b/a GOLDEN LIVING CENTER-WALNUT CREEK, ERIE ACQUISITION, LLC; GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL SENIOR CARE, LLC; GGNSC EQUITY HOLDINGS, LLC; GGNSC CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC; GGNSC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; SPECTRA HEALTHCARE ALLIANCE, INC.; SPECTRA HEALTCARE ALLIANCE VI, LLC; and BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiffs,
TOM FOSTER, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth W. Foster, Deceased, Defendant.
TERRENCE F. McVERRY, United States District Judge.
This civil action under the Federal Arbitration Act was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4.
The procedural posture of this case is unusual. Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on March 4, 2014. Defendant filed a MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 7), with brief in support. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion. Magistrate Judge Baxter heard oral argument and on December 31, 2014, she issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") which recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed both a Motion to File a Supplemental Pleading (ECF No. 15) and timely Objections to the R&R (ECF No. 17). On February 5, 2015, Magistrate Judge Baxter granted Plaintiffs' motion to file a supplemental pleading. On February 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a "Supplemental Complaint" (ECF No. 21), which pleads additional facts regarding the state court action filed by Defendant.
The newly-pled facts change the nature of the Plaintiffs' legal argument rather than merely recount a subsequent occurrence. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have, in actuality, filed an "Amended Complaint" pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), rather than a "Supplemental Complaint" pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d). It will construe Plaintiffs' filing as an "Amended Complaint" to which Defendant must file a responsive pleading or appropriate motion.
An Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case. Because the original motion to dismiss and the Magistrate Judge's R&R were based on the original - now superseded - Complaint, that motion, the R&R and the Objections thereto are now moot.
The following order is hereby entered:
AND NOW, this 18th Day of February, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 10); the December 31, 2014 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; and Plaintiffs' Objections thereto (ECF No. 17) are DENIED AS MOOT.
The case is hereby remanded to Magistrate Judge Baxter for further proceedings based on the Amended Complaint.