Ross v. Bachand et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying as moot 13 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), denying as moot 15 MOTION to Strike 6 Answer to Complaint, Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses and Cancelling Hearing. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
R. L. ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v

Case No. 14-cv-14122
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

DONALD BACHAND, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT
AND CANCELLING HEARING
On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff R. L. Ross filed a complaint against twelve Defendants,
alleging numerous violations of state and federal law. Seven Defendants filed an answer to the
complaint with affirmative defenses. ECF No. 6. Ross, in turn, then filed a motion to strike the
affirmative defenses in the Defendants’ answer. ECF No. 15.
Five of the Defendants file a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
ECF No. 13. The Court therefore set the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike affirmative
defenses for hearing on April 7, 2015.
On February 2, 2015, Ross filed a First Amendment Complaint.1 ECF No. 23. Ross’s
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint for all purposes. Calhoun v. Bergh, 769
F.3d 409, 410 (6th Cir. 2014). “The filing of the amended complaint ‘render[s] the original
complaint null and void.” Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008)
(quoting Vadas v. United States, 527 F.3d 16, 22 n.4 (2d Cir. 2007)).

1

Ross simultaneously filed a response to the motion to dismiss in which she asserts that the “amended complaint
will address any defects in the original pleading.” ¶ 4. This Court reaches no conclusions concerning the accuracy
of this representation.

Because the original complaint has been superseded, there is no longer a live dispute
about the merits of the claims asserted in it. See Cedar View, Ltd. v. Colpetzer, 2006 WL
456482, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2006) (the “earlier motion to dismiss . . . and motion for
judgment on the pleadings . . . are denied as moot, as they refer to a version of the complaint that
has since been replaced . . . .”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Ross’s Complaint (ECF No.
13) is DENIED AS MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 15) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that the hearing set for April 7, 2015 is CANCELLED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: February 6, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on February 6, 2015.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-2-