Dr. Veronica King v. Ascension, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DR. VERONICA KING, Plaintiff, Case No. 26-cv-494-pp v. ASCENSION, LLC, Defendant.

ORDER REMINDING PLAINTIFF OF OPTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF RESPONDING TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 7)

On April 17, 2026, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 7. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has not identified an ADA-qualifying disability and has not shown that the defendant took any adverse action against her based on an alleged disability and that the plaintiff fails to state claims for retaliation in violation of the ADA and FMLA, for FMLA interference, and for discrimination in violation of Title VII. Dkt. No. 8 at 3-13.

Under Civil Local Rule 7(b), if the plaintiff wishes to oppose the motion she must do so within twenty-one days—that is by May 8, 2026. The plaintiff is free to timely file a response to the motion to dismiss, but the court reminds the plaintiff that she has another option—she may file an amended complaint to try to cure the alleged deficiencies. See Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. and Nw. Ind., 786 F3d 510, 522 (7th Cir. 2015) (explaining that a responsive amendment may avoid the need to decide the motion or reduce the number of issues decided). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) allows the plaintiff to file the amended complaint as a matter of course within twenty- one days after service of the responsive pleading.

The court ORDERS that by May 8, 2026 the plaintiff shall file either an amended complaint or a response to the motion to dismiss.

Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 21st day of April, 2026.

BY THE COURT: Chief United States District Judge