Amalu v. LSH Transport, LLC et al

Filing 198

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS JAMES HARTMANN AND GLENDA HARTMANN(166) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:15-cv-01116-JDB-egb; denying (158) Motion to Dismiss in ca se 1:15-cv-01117-JDB-egb; denying (91) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:15-cv-01175-JDB-egb; denying (56) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:15-cv-01298-JDB-egb; denying (7) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:16-cv-01116-JDB-egb. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 8/2/16. (Breen, J.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
AUGUSTINA C. AMALU, Individually
and as Next of Kin and Administrator of
the Estate of Ifeyinwa Stephanie Amalu,
Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 15-1116
Lead Case

LSH TRANSPORT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants,
_____________________________________________________________________________
ODY UDEOZO and JOSEPHINE UDEOZO,
Individually and as Next of Kin and
Administrators of the Estate of Chinelo
Udeozo, Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 15-1117
Member Case

LSH TRANSPORT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants,
_____________________________________________________________________________
JAMES HARTMANN and
GLENDA HARTMANN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 15-1175
Member Case

LSH TRANSPORT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants,
_____________________________________________________________________________

AUGUSTINA C. AMALU, Individually
and as Next of Kin and Administrator of
the Estate of Ifeyinwa Stephanie Amalu,
Deceased, and
ODY UDEOZO and JOSEPHINE UDEOZO,
Individually and as Next of Kin and
Administrators of the Estate of Chinelo
Udeozo, Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 15-1298
Member Case

STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC.,
Defendant,
______________________________________________________________________________
AUGUSTINA C. AMALU, Individually
and as Next of Kin and Administrator of
the Estate of Ifeyinwa Stephanie Amalu,
Deceased, and
ODY UDEOZO and JOSEPHINE UDEOZO,
Individually and as Next of Kin and
Administrators of the Estate of Chinelo
Udeozo, Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 16-1116
Related Case

STEVENS TRANSPORT T.L., INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC.’S MOTION
TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS JAMES HARTMANN
AND GLENDA HARTMANN
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pending before the Court is the May 27, 2016, motion of Defendant Stevens Transport,
2

Inc. (“Stevens”) to dismiss the third amended complaint of Plaintiffs James Hartmann and
Glenda Hartmann. (Case No. 15-1116, D.E. 166; Case No. 15-1117, D.E. 158; Case No. 151175, D.E. 91; Case No. 15-1298, D.E. 56; Case No. 16-1116, D.E. 7.) Subsequently, on June
27, 2016, the Hartmanns filed their fourth amended complaint. (Case No. 15-1116, D.E. 180.)
When a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the new pleading supercedes all previous
complaints and controls the case going forward. See Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc.,
236 F.3d 299, 306-07 (6th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Stevens’ motion to dismiss the superceded
third amended complaint is DENIED as moot. See Beijing Fito Med. Co., Ltd. v. Wright Med.
Tech., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-02258-JPM-tmp, 2016 WL 502109, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2016)
(where amended complaint had been filed, motion to dismiss original complaint rendered moot);
Ky. Press Ass’n, Inc. v. Ky., 355 F. Supp. 2d 853, 857 (E.D. Ky. 2005) (same).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2d day of August 2016.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3