AllChem Performance Products Inc v. Aqualine Warehouse LLC et al

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER denying 29 Motion for Default Judgment.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(htippen, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ALLCHEM PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS,
INC.,

§
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
VS.
§
§
AQUILINE WAREHOUSE, LLC, AND
§
CACTUS VALLEY POOL SERVICES AND §
REPAIR, L.L.C., DOING BUSINESS §
AS CACTUS VALLEY POOL,
§
§
Defendants.
§

CIVIL ACTION H-10-3224

OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause are
Plaintiff

AllChem

Performance

Products,

Inc’s

(“AllChem’s”)

[third]1 motion for default judgment (instrument #29) against
Defendant

Aqualine

Warehouse,

L.L.C.

(“Aqualine”)

based

upon

Allchem’s Original Complaint, which was served on Aqualine on
January 10, 2011.
Allchem has amended its complaint twice since the Original
Complaint was filed.

#16, 28.

“An amended complaint supersedes

the original complaint and the original complaint has no legal
effect except to the extent that it is incorporated by reference
into the amended complaint.” Rossignol v. Tillman, Civ. A. No. 10-

1

Previous motions for default are instruments #9, 11.
Because Allchem filed an amended complaint (#16) before the Court
reviewed these motions, it declared them moot. #18.
-1-

3044, 2011 WL 1193017, *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 25, 2011), citing Eason v.
Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 1996), and King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d
344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994).

See also Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc.,

759 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1985).

The Second Amended Complaint

(#28) does not incorporate the Original Complaint.

Thus the Court

ORDERS that the current motion for default (#29) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this

20th

day of

December , 2011.

___________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-