Carroll v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

W.D. North Carolina

Carroll v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedAugust 8, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00191

StatusUnknown

This text of Carroll v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (Carroll v. Tyson Foods, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroll v. Tyson Foods, Inc., (W.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:25-cv-191-MOC-DCK

FATIHAA CARROLL, ) ) Plaintiff, pro se, ) ) vs. ) ) ) ORDER ) TYSON FOODS, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Fatihaa Carroll: Motion for Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 20); Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 22); and Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Strike Response in Opposition to Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 28). Also pending is a Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint, filed by Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. (Doc. No. 24). As ordered by the Court, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 4, 2025. (Doc. No. 30). Because Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint, Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss the Original Complaint is moot. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule ... is that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.”); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motions to dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint). Moreover, Defendant has answered or otherwise pled. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motions for Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 20), and Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 22); are also DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike have also been rendered moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The Motion for Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 20); Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 22); Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Strike Response in Opposition to Motion, (Doc. No. 28), and the Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint, filed by Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc., (Doc. No. 24), are all DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 8, 2025

Max O. Cogburn i ) United States District Judge Fegan

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:25-cv-191-MOC-DCK

FATIHAA CARROLL, ) ) Plaintiff, pro se, ) ) vs. ) ) ) ORDER ) TYSON FOODS, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Fatihaa Carroll: Motion for Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 20); Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 22); and Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Strike Response in Opposition to Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 28). Also pending is a Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint, filed by Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. (Doc. No. 24). As ordered by the Court, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 4, 2025. (Doc. No. 30). Because Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint, Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss the Original Complaint is moot. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule ... is that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.”); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motions to dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint). Moreover, Defendant has answered or otherwise pled. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motions for Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 20), and Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 22); are also DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike have also been rendered moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The Motion for Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 20); Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 22); Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Strike Response in Opposition to Motion, (Doc. No. 28), and the Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint, filed by Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc., (Doc. No. 24), are all DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 8, 2025

Max O. Cogburn i ) United States District Judge Fegan

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carroll v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-tyson-foods-inc-ncwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack