BL Ventures v. Apex Medical, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

BL VENTURES d/b/a BL VENTURES, LLC, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 3:20-CV-139-DCP ) APEX MEDICAL, d/b/a TN PREMIER CARE, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the consent of the parties, for all further proceedings, including entry of judgment [Doc. 21]. Now before the Court is Defendants’ Rule 12.02(6) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion to Dismiss”) [Doc. 14].1 In response to the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 17], Plaintiffs, in part, argued that the Motion to Dismiss is moot because Plaintiffs had filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. 16]. Defendants did not reply to Plaintiff’s response. Accordingly, given the filing of the Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 14] is DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., 731 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2013) (“An amended

1 The Court presumes that Defendants’ reference to Rule 12.02(b)(6) is a typographical error as Rule 12.02 does not exist in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. complaint supersedes an earlier complaint for all purposes.”’) (citing Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commce'ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n. 4 (2009)). IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTER: Pruhra . POLLAN □□ Debra C. Poplin \ United States Magistrate Judge