BESS v. THE DENTAL SCHEDULING CENTER INC

M.D. Georgia

BESS v. THE DENTAL SCHEDULING CENTER INC

DecidedOctober 25, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-00083

StatusUnknown

This text of BESS v. THE DENTAL SCHEDULING CENTER INC (BESS v. THE DENTAL SCHEDULING CENTER INC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BESS v. THE DENTAL SCHEDULING CENTER INC, (M.D. Ga. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION AMANDA BESS, Plaintiff. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-cv-00083-TES THE DENTAL SCHEDULING CENTER INC. et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

Before Plaintiff Amanda Bess filed her Amended Complaint [Doc. 9], Defendants, The Dental Scheduling Center, Inc. and Smith Dental Care of Athens, Inc., filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] Plaintiff’s original Complaint [Doc. 1]. Under black-letter federal law, “an amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). This means that “the original pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and [it] is no longer a part of the pleader’s averments against his adversary.” Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see also Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (initial pleading “bec[o]me[s] a legal nullity”). But, an original complaint would still have legal effect if “the amendment specifically refers to or adopts the earlier pleading.” Varnes v. Local 91, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass’n, 674 F.2d 1365, 1370 n.6 (11th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). An amended

complaint that does not incorporate the prior pleading, however, moots “the motion to dismiss the original complaint because the motion seeks to dismiss a pleading that has been superseded.” Wimberly v. Broome, No. 6:15-cv-23, 2016 WL 3264346, at *1

(S.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing cases). The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and found no reference to, or adoption of, any allegations set forth in its original Complaint.

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is the sole operative pleading in this case and renders moot the Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] as moot. SO ORDERED, this 25th day of October, 2023.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION AMANDA BESS, Plaintiff. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-cv-00083-TES THE DENTAL SCHEDULING CENTER INC. et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

Before Plaintiff Amanda Bess filed her Amended Complaint [Doc. 9], Defendants, The Dental Scheduling Center, Inc. and Smith Dental Care of Athens, Inc., filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] Plaintiff’s original Complaint [Doc. 1]. Under black-letter federal law, “an amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). This means that “the original pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and [it] is no longer a part of the pleader’s averments against his adversary.” Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see also Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (initial pleading “bec[o]me[s] a legal nullity”). But, an original complaint would still have legal effect if “the amendment specifically refers to or adopts the earlier pleading.” Varnes v. Local 91, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass’n, 674 F.2d 1365, 1370 n.6 (11th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). An amended

complaint that does not incorporate the prior pleading, however, moots “the motion to dismiss the original complaint because the motion seeks to dismiss a pleading that has been superseded.” Wimberly v. Broome, No. 6:15-cv-23, 2016 WL 3264346, at *1

(S.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing cases). The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and found no reference to, or adoption of, any allegations set forth in its original Complaint.

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is the sole operative pleading in this case and renders moot the Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] as moot. SO ORDERED, this 25th day of October, 2023.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BESS v. THE DENTAL SCHEDULING CENTER INC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bess-v-the-dental-scheduling-center-inc-gamd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack