Alicia Bell v. Dollar Tree, Inc. et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ALICIA BELL,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-13259 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson v. Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman

DOLLAR TREE, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [31] On May 9, 2025, after Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 16), Plaintiff properly filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 23). (See also ECF No. 22.) That made her prior complaint a “nullity,” B&H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 268 n.8 (6th Cir. 2008), as indicated in the Court’s April 30, 2025, order (ECF No. 22) and as reflected by Defendants’ subsequently filed motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 24). See Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000) (explaining that an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints and becomes the operative pleading). “[M]otions directed at the superseded pleading . . . generally are to be denied as moot.” Myslivecek v. FCA US LLC, No. 23-12980, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26685, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); (see also ECF No. 22, PageID.193 (“If an amended complaint is filed, the Court will dismiss as moot Defendants’ pending dispositive motion.”).) Thus, the Court denied as moot Defendants’ initial motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that order based on newly acquired evidence. (ECF No. 31.) The motion is untimely. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h). And, in any event, new evidence has nothing to do with whether the filing of an amended

complaint moots a motion to dismiss an earlier-filed complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 31) is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2025

s/Laurie J. Michelson LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE