Dailey v. Koch Foods, LLC et al (JRG1)

Filing 22

ORDER finding as moot 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; terminating 20 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 1/9/2018. (SAC, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA

TCHNAVIAN R. DAILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

KOCH FOODS, LLC, a/k/a KOCH
FOODS OF CHATTANOOGA,
JAMIE RUSSELL, jointly and severally,
personally and individually, and KATHY
RAWLSTON, jointly and severally,
personally and individually,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-CV-268-SKL

ORDER
This civil action is before the Court on a joint motion to dismiss filed by Defendants
Koch Foods, LLC, Jamie Russell, and Kathy Rawlston (“Defendants”) [Doc. 13]; and on a
motion for leave to amend the complaint filed by Plaintiff, Tchnavian R. Dailey (“Plaintiff”)
[Doc. 20].
The parties previously agreed and indicated to the Court that “allowing plaintiff 30 days
to amend her complaint will render the defendants’ motion to dismiss moot.” [Doc. 16]. The
Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to file her amended complaint and granted her until January
12, 2018, to do so [id.]. On January 4, 2018, even though Plaintiff had been ordered to file an
amended complaint, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint [Doc.
20]. Plaintiff also filed her amended complaint that same day [Doc. 21]. The Court finds the

motion for leave to amend the complaint was unnecessary in light of the Court’s prior order
directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to
terminate Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint [Doc. 20] because it is moot and
to revise the docket to reflect the Document filed at docket entry 21 is the amended complaint.
For clarity’s sake, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s amended complaint is the controlling
complaint in this case.
The filing of an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint, rendering an
original complaint a nullity in the record and rendering a motion to dismiss the original
complaint as moot. See B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 267 n.8 (6th Cir.
2008) (“[A] prior ‘complaint is a nullity, because an amended complaint super[s]edes all prior
complaints[.]’” (citation omitted)); Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306
(6th Cir. 2000) (acknowledging that when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the “new
complaint supersedes all previous complaints and controls . . . from that point forward” (citation
omitted)); Ky. Press Ass’n, Inc. v. Kentucky, 355 F. Supp. 2d 853, 857 (E.D. Ky. 2005)
(“Plaintiff’s amended complaint super[s]edes the original complaint, thus making the motion to
dismiss the original complaint moot.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to
dismiss [Doc. 13] is DENIED as moot in light of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. See Pinks v.
Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., 83 F. App’x 90, 90 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting that the district court denied
as moot the defendant’s motion to dismiss after the plaintiff filed an amended complaint); City of
Morristown v. AT&T Corp., 206 F. Supp. 1321, 1325, 1340 (E.D. Tenn. 2016) (denying the
defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot because it addressed the initial complaint rather than the
amended complaint); see also Gibson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., No. 11-2173-STA,
2012 WL 1601313, at *9 (W.D. Tenn. May 7, 2012) (“Courts in this Circuit and others will deny

2

as moot Rule 12 motions . . . after a plaintiff subsequently files an amended complaint.”
(footnote omitted)).
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3