Gipson v. Enterprise Products Partners L.P.

Filing 36

ORDER terminating as moot 23 Motion to Abate.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SAMUEL GIPSON,
Plaintiff,
VS.
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS
L.P., et al,
Defendants.

April 07, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-464
§
§
§
§
§

ORDER
On April 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (D.E. 34), which does not
reference his earlier complaint.

“An amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically
refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.” King v. Dogan, 31
F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 508
(5th Cir.1985)). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion addressed to a superseded complaint is moot.
See generally, Van Deelen v. Cain, 628 F. App'x 891, 900 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting that
prior motions to dismiss had been mooted by prior amended complaints). See also,
Maxim Integrated Prod., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. SA-14-CV-1030XR, 2015 WL 10990119, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2015) (citing Merritt v. Fogel, 349 F.
App'x 742, 745 (3d Cir. 2009)). Consequently, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 28).

1/2

Plaintiff’s motion to amend (D.E. 30) recited that, if granted, his motion to abate
(D.E. 23) would be moot.

Having granted the motion to amend, the Court

TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to abate (D.E. 23).
ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2017.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2