Roger Kalaouz and Associates et al v. Jack Rouse Associates, Inc.

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM or, in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement

S.D. OhioNovember 30, 2011

4848-2630-1966.1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ROGER KALAOUZ AND ASSOCIATES, a Lebanese corporation; and RK & A, INC., a subsidiary California corporation, 32610 McRae Lane, Wildomar, California 92595, Plaintiffs, v. JACK ROUSE ASSOCIATES, INC., 600 Vine Street, Suite 1700, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Defendant. ______________________________________ ) ) ) No. 1:11-CV-00652-HJW ) ) Judge Herman J. Weber ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Plaintiffs Roger Kalaouz and Associates and RK&A, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit the following memorandum in oppsition to the motion by Defendant Jack Rouse Associates, Inc. (“Defendant”) to dismiss this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. I. ARGUMENT Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, Plaintiffs were granted until November 30, 2011 to file an amended complaint in response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 20). On November 30, 2011, Plaintiffs filed and served an amended Case: 1:11-cv-00652-HJW Doc #: 22 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 188 4848-2630-1966.1 complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) as a matter of right, so Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint should be denied as moot. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), each party has the right to amend its pleadings “as a matter of course” without leave of court at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1); Miller v. ACI Indus., No. C2-09-CV-447, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 495, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 5, 2010) (“plaintiff is entitled to amend a complaint once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is filed.”). Motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 are not “responsive pleadings” for puoses of Rule 15. Miller v. ACI Indus., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 495, at *3 (observing a motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading under Rule 15(a)); Herzog v. Secretary of Health, Educ. and Welfare, 686 F.2d 1154, 1162 (6th Cir. 1982) (“A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.”). Accordingly, the filing of Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), does not bar Plaintiffs from amending its complaint as a matter of right. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint supersedes its original complaint filed on September 21, 2010 and renders it of no legal effect (aside from the commencement date of this action, notice of the asserted contract breach, and any other timing issues). Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306-07 (6th Cir. 2000) (filing of a new complaint supersedes the previous complaint nd controls the case). Case: 1:11-cv-00652-HJW Doc #: 22 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 189 4848-2630-1966.1 Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement, should therefore be denied as moot. See Dorcey v. Clements, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131850, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 15, 2011) (filing of amended complaint rendered partial motion to dismiss based on the original complaint moot). II. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement, should be denied as moot. Respectfully submitted this 30th day of November, 2011. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP /s/ Gary E. Becker Gary E. Becker (0012716) Robert M. Zimmerman (0079584) 1900 Chemed Center 255 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: (513) 977-8200 Fax: (513) 977-8141 Email: gary.becker@dinsmore.com robert.zimmerman@dinsmore.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Roger Kalaouz and Associates and RK & A, Inc. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Leron E. Rogers Georgia Bar No. 482620 Kenneth A. Newby Georgia Bar No. 179772 Case: 1:11-cv-00652-HJW Doc #: 22 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 190 4848-2630-1966.1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (pro hac vice admissions pending) 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Phone: (404) 348-8585 Fax: (404) 467-8845 Email: lrogers@lbbslaw.com knewby@lbbslaw.com Of Counsel for Plaintiffs Kendall A. Minter, Esq. MINTER & ASSOCIATES, LLC 5398 E. Mountain Street Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Case: 1:11-cv-00652-HJW Doc #: 22 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 191 4848-2630-1966.1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ROGER KALAOUZ AND ASSOCIATES, a Lebanese corporation; and RK & A, INC., a subsidiary California corporation, 32610 McRae Lane, Wildomar, California 92595, Plaintiffs, v. JACK ROUSE ASSOCIATES, INC., 600 Vine Street, Suite 1700, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Defendant. ______________________________________ ) ) ) No. 1:11-CV-00652-HJW ) ) Judge Herman J. Weber ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We certify that on November 30, 2011, we electronically filed the forgoing MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTI ON TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFIN ITE STATEMENT using the CM/ECF system which will send notification f such filing to counsel of record in this matter who are registered on the CM/ECF: James R. Cummins, Esq. Renee A. Infante WAITE, SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A. 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower One West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Case: 1:11-cv-00652-HJW Doc #: 22 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 192 4848-2630-1966.1 jcummins@wsbclaw.com reneeinfante@wsbclaw.com (513) 621-0267 – Telephone (513) 381-2375 – Facsimile Counsel for Defendant Jack Rouse Associates, Inc. Respectfully submitted this 30th day of November, 2011. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP /s/ Gary E. Becker Gary E. Becker (0012716) Robert M. Zimmerman (0079584) 1900 Chemed Center 255 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: (513) 977-8200 Fax: (513) 977-8141 Email: gary.becker@dinsmore.com robert.zimmerman@dinsmore.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Roger Kalaouz and Associates and RK & A, Inc. Case: 1:11-cv-00652-HJW Doc #: 22 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 193