IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-0655-WS-N

 )

JAMES M. CRUMB, M.D., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (doc. 25) filed by 

defendants James Crumb, M.D., and Mobility Metabolism & Wellness PC; and on the Motion to 

Dismiss (doc. 27) filed by defendant Coastal Neurological Institute, P.C. Both Motions 

challenge the sufficiency of the Government’s 63-page, 293-paragraph Complaint (doc. 1), via a 

variety of arguments, including principally that the Complaint lacks the particularity required 

under Rule 9(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., and is an impermissible shotgun pleading. The Court entered and 

amended a briefing schedule for the Motions to Dismiss, pursuant to which the Government’s 

responses are presently due on or before May 27, 2016, with movants’ replies to be filed on or 

before June 13, 2016. (Docs. 29, 33.)

On May 17, 2016, the Government filed a 69-page, 307-paragraph Amended Complaint 

(doc. 34) as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. The Amended Complaint 

appears to make substantial additions and modifications to the Government’s pleading; 

moreover, preliminary review of the document suggests that at least some of the edits were made 

to rebut directly the sufficiency objections interposed by defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.

The Government’s amendment of the Complaint necessarily alters the status quo with 

respect to the pending Motions to Dismiss, as to which briefing is in midstream. Fundamentally, 

those Rule 12(b) Motions relate to a now-superseded iteration of the complaint. In light of this 

development, it is unclear whether defendants wish to continue to assert all of their previously 

stated grounds for dismissal vis a vis the new Amended Complaint, whether they wish to revise 

Case 1:15-cv-00655-WS-N Document 35 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 2
-2-

or supplement those arguments, whether they wish to abandon some or all of those arguments, 

and the like. At best, it would be both unwieldy and inefficient for this Court to endeavor to 

synchronize partially briefed Rule 12(b) motions with a voluminous complaint that may have 

changed in material respects during the course of that briefing. Without hearing anew from the 

parties, the undersigned would be unable to discern with clarity which contentions the movants 

might still wish to advance, how the arguments for or against dismissal might have been 

modified by virtue of the intervening filing of the Amended Complaint, or what new contentions 

the parties might wish to raise in relation to the Amended Complaint.

Based on the foregoing considerations (and without expressing any opinion as to the 

merits of the Motions to Dismiss or the continued viability of the grounds for relief asserted 

therein in the aftermath of the Amended Complaint), the only sensible, efficient course of action 

is to start over from the beginning. Accordingly, the Court deems the pending Motions to 

Dismiss (docs. 25 & 27) moot because they relate to a superseded pleading that is now devoid of 

any legal force or effect. Defendants must file their answers or Rule 12(b) motions in response 

to the Amended Complaint on or before June 6, 2016. Should these defendants renew their 

Motions to Dismiss, they should reproduce in full any arguments they wish to carry over from 

their prior Rule 12(b) Motions. In this manner, briefing on any renewed Motions to Dismiss will 

be self-contained, without obliging the Court or opposing counsel to refer back to previous briefs 

relating to the now-moot original Motions to Dismiss. Finally, all parties are reminded of the 

admonition / encouragement in the Order (doc. 29) entered on April 27, 2016, that they work 

proactively to minimize redundancy in their filings whenever possible. Defendants’ counsel are 

expected to coordinate their efforts to the extent reasonably practicable to cut down on the 

quantum of repetition, and to incorporate by reference passages from co-defendants’ filings as 

appropriate. Likewise, the Government should frame any briefs it files in response to multiple 

Motions to Dismiss in a manner that keeps duplication to a minimum.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2016.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00655-WS-N Document 35 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 2