Mitchell v. Eli Lilly And Company et al
ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT 28 47 MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 2/15/17. (Breen, J.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and
ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Before the Court are the motions of the remaining Defendant in this matter, Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to dismiss the original and first amended complaints of the
Plaintiff, Melissa Mitchell. (Docket Entries (“D.E.s”) 28 & 47.) On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint. (D.E. 56.) When a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the
new pleading supersedes 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). For this reason, and for
purposes of docket management, the pending motions to dismiss the superseded complaints are
DENIED as moot. See Beijing Fito Med. Co., Ltd. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., No. 2:15-cv02258-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 15th day of February 2017.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?