Schenk v. McKee

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION BREANA SCHENK, as next best ) friend to Ev M, Em M, and El M, ) and the ESTATE OF KELSEY ) DELYAH SCHENK-McKEE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) NO. 22-cv-01268- STA-jay vs. ) ) PAUL A. THOMAS, GIBSON ) COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff has filed a combined response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and a motion to amend her complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Defendant has not responded to the motion within the requisite time. For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs will have seven (7) days from the entry of this order in which to file their amended complaint. (ECF No. 16-2.) In light of the filing of an amended complaint by Plaintiffs, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 13.) See Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299 , 306 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that the amended complaint supersedes all previous complaints and becomes the operative pleading)); see also Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (“Because the original complaint has been superseded and nullified, there is no longer a live dispute about the propriety or merit of the claims asserted therein; therefore, any motion to dismiss such claims is moot.”) IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: April 17, 2023