Anthony Imperial v. Swift Moving Services, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-01871
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

PEARSON, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY IMPERIAL, ) CASE NO. 4:25-CV-01871 ) Plaintiff, ) ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON v. ) ) SWIFT MOVING SERVICES, LLC ) MEMORANDUM OF ) OPINION AND ORDER Defendant. ) [Resolving ECF Nos. 34, 41]

The Court considers two Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 34, 41). Defendant and first movant is Swift Moving Services, LLC. Plaintiff and second movant is Anthony Imperial. Both motions are denied for the reasons herein. A pleading that has been amended under Fed. R. Civ P. 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies. See Clark v. Johnston, 413 Fed.Appx. 804, 811 (6th Cir. 2011). The original pleading thus becomes inoperative. See Drake v. City of Detroit, Michigan, 266 Fed.Appx. 444, 448 (6th Cir. 2008). Defendant’s motion to dismiss predates the first amended complaint, which supersedes the complaint for which dismissal is sought. See ECF Nos. 1, 34, 37. Likewise, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss predates the amended answer, complaint, and counterclaim, which supersedes the complaint for which dismissal is sought. See ECF Nos. 39, 41, 43. Consequently, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41) are denied without prejudice as moot. See Calvert v. GNC Corp., No. 4:13CV1697 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2013) (Pearson, J.).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 16, 2025 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Date Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge