Integrity Express Logistics, LLC v. Grgurich

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI INTEGRITY EXPRESS LOGISTICS, LLC =: Case No. 1:23-cv-581 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland : NEAL GRGURICH, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 4) AS MOOT

This matter is before the Court on Defendant GD Ventures Brokerage, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff has since amended its complaint, (Am. Compl., Doc. 9), so the Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss as MOOT. Generally, “an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, thus making the motion to dismiss the original complaint moot.’” Green v. Mason, 504 F.Supp.3d. 813, 826 (S.D. Ohio 2020) (quoting Ky. Press Ass’n. Inc. v Ky., 355 F.Supp.2d 853, 857 (E.D. Ky. 2005)). However, if the defects addressed in the original motion remain in the new pleading, the Court may still refer to the original motion. Id.; see also Yates v. Applied Performance Techs., Inc., 205 F.R.D. 497, 499 (S.D. Ohio 2002). Defendants contend that the new complaint suffers from the same defects, but they did so through a renewed motion to dismiss. (See Mot. to Dismiss, Doc. 13, Pg. ID 446).

Here, the general rule applies. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and Defendant responded with a new Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). The Court thus determines that Amended Complaint is the operative filing and that the new Motion to Dismiss supplants the initial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Hen wosqetel) By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND