E.C., by and through his parent, Toneshia C., and Toneshia C. v. Walton County School District and Tara Geiser, in her individual capacity

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00158
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION

E.C., by and through his parent, TONESHIA C., and TONESHIA C.,

Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:25-cv-00158-TES WALTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT and TARA GEISER, in her individual capacity,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

In their Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8], Defendants Walton County School District and Tara Geiser (collectively “Defendants”) argue, inter alia, that the Complaint [Doc. 1] filed by Plaintiffs E.C., a minor child, and his mother, Toneshia C., is a shotgun pleading. See [Doc. 8, pp. 7–10]. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. 11]. 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 [pleaders’] averments against [their] 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 Mia., 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (initial pleading “bec[o]me[s] a legal nullity”). Further, 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complaint because the motion seeks to dismiss a pleading that has been superseded.”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).

Here, Plaintiffs state, in their Amended Complaint, that Defendants’ motion is now moot in light of Plaintiffs’ amended pleading. [Doc. 11, p. 1 n.1]. Based on Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants’ motion is moot, it’s clear that Plaintiffs intend for their original Complaint to be superseded by their Amended Complaint. With no

reference to, or adoption of, any allegations set forth in their original Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is the sole operative pleading in this case and renders moot Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8] as moot. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2025. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT