Opinion ID: 215895
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DCAM is the only defendant in this appeal

Text: Due to its relevance for purposes of our Eleventh Amendment analysis, we begin by setting forth our understanding with respect to which party is the defendant in this appeal. In this regard, Brait avers thatbecause the district court allowed its motion for leave to file an amended complaintthe Proposed Individual Defendants should be considered the defendants in this appeal. This is despite the fact that Brait did not file an amended complaint after having been granted leave to do so and never served the Proposed Individual Defendants with summonses. For the reasons stated below, we find Brait's allegations unavailing and conclude that DCAM is the only defendant in this appeal. Where amendment as a matter of course is no longer available, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows amendment of a complaint with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. An amended complaint, once filed, normally supersedes the antecedent complaint, and causes the latter to no longer perform[ ] any function in the case. Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 91 (1st Cir.2008) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). An amended complaint must generally be served upon every party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(a)(1)(B). Furthermore, an amended complaint that adds defendants to an action must be served upon such defendants within 120 days after the amended complaint is filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); see also Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir.2006) (noting that the 120-day period provided by Rule 4(m) applies to service upon defendants newly added in an amended complaint). As we have stated, Brait concedes that it has neither filed an amended complaint after having been granted leave to do so nor served the Proposed Individual Defendants. In addition, Brait has not requested that the proposed amended complaintattached to its motion for leave to filebe deemed a proper filing of an amended complaint. [2] See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d). Brait, however, alleges that its inaction was justified in light of the circumstances of this case. Specifically, Brait contends that it would have been a waste of resources for Brait to file the first amended complaint and serve it upon the Proposed Individual Defendants, given that the proposed amended complaint advised the district court of Brait's allegations for purposes of determining whether the case should nonetheless be dismissed. Accordingly, Brait maintains that it should not have been required to file an amended complaint or serve the Proposed Individual Defendants with summonses while the district court was still considering DCAM's motion to dismiss. Brait's arguments do not support its contention that the Proposed Individual Defendants are the defendants in this case. Its arguments merely attempt to provide cost-efficiency reasons for why Brait should not have been required to remedy an alleged defect in the district court's jurisdiction, despite having been granted leave to do so. It is unnecessary for us to address these arguments at this point, since they do not change the fact that Brait failed to file an amended complaint and serve the Proposed Individual Defendants, and, consequently, that DCAM is the sole defendant here. For the reasons stated, we conclude that DCAM is the sole defendant in this appeal. [3] This conclusion is consistent with the apparent understanding of the district court, which did not change the caption of this case to eliminate DCAM and add the Proposed Individual Defendants. Such proposed defendants have not appeared in this case (on appeal or in the district court). With this understanding in mind, we proceed to analyze DCAM's Eleventh Amendment immunity defense.