UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-CV-01291

VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

A P C PHARMACEUTICALS L L C ET MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO AL

ORDER

The following motions are pending before the undersigned: (1) DEFENDANT KATHY RICHARD’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6) (Rec. Doc. 12) filed by Defendant Kathy Richard; (2) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE SCANDALOUS AND UNNECESSARY PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(F) (Rec. Doc. 15) filed by Defendants APC Pharmaceuticals LLC, Anesthesiology & Pain Consultants LLC, Dr. Matthew Mitchell, Dr. Scott Gammel, Dr. Michael Jennings, Dr. Amarendar Kasarla, Dr. John Martin, Dr. Reginald Ardoin, and Dr. Sanjiv Jindia; and (3) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6) (Rec. Doc. 19) filed by Defendants APC Pharmaceuticals LLC, Anesthesiology & Pain Consultants LLC, Dr. Matthew Mitchell, Dr. Scott Gammel, Dr. Michael Jennings, Dr. Amarendar Kasarla, Dr. John Martin, Dr. Reginald Ardoin, and Dr. Sanjiv Jindia. Plaintiff United States of America opposes the motions (Rec. Doc. 25, 26, and 27) and incorporates what the Court construes as motions for leave to amend the complaint. (Rec. Docs. 25 at p. 23; 26 at p. 6). Although this Court questions the

efficacy of presenting a motion for leave to amend in such a manner,1 Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend are hereby GRANTED out of an abundance of caution. In keeping with the prevailing procedure in this and a majority of courts of appeal and district courts, Defendants’ motions (Rec. Docs. 12, 15, and 19) are, accordingly, MOOT. See, e.g., Beroid v. LaFleur,

(W.D. La. Jan. 24, 2022), adopted by

(W.D. La. Feb. 8, 2022); Deshotel v. PayPal, Inc.,

(W.D. La. Aug. 22, 2019); Probado Techns. Corp. v.

Smartnet, Inc.,

(S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2010). It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may file its amended complaint on or before October 17, 2025. It is finally ORDERED that Defendants may renew their motions, if appropriate, after the filing of any amended complaint by Plaintiff. Defendants may adopt the arguments contained in the first motions by reference and may supplement such

arguments, if appropriate. Should Defendants file such renewed motions to dismiss, Plaintiff shall file any desired opposition within FOURTEEN DAYS of such filing. Defendants may file any desired reply within TEN DAYS of the filing of any opposition by Plaintiff.

1 This Court notes that, generally, motions for leave to file an amended complaint must be accompanied by the proposed amended pleading. Local Rule 7.6. Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 17th day of September, 2025.

David J. Ayo United States Magistrate Judge