Kyle Robinson v. Jared Knecht, et al.

M.D. Georgia

Kyle Robinson v. Jared Knecht, et al.

DecidedDecember 31, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00189

StatusUnknown

This text of Kyle Robinson v. Jared Knecht, et al. (Kyle Robinson v. Jared Knecht, et al.) 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

Kyle Robinson v. Jared Knecht, et al., (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION KYLE ROBINSON Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 3:25-cv-00189-TES JARED KNECHT, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

Before Plaintiff Kyle Robinson filed his Amended Complaint [Doc. 26], Defendants Electrical Components International, Inc. (“ECI”), Promark Electronics, Inc. (“Promark”), and Jarred Knecht (“Knecht, collectively, the “Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] the original Complaint [Doc. 8]. 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 h[er] 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”). 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moots “the motion to dismiss the original complaint because the motion seeks to dismiss a pleading that has been superseded.”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). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and found no reference to, or adoption of, any allegations set forth in its original Complaint. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is the sole operative pleading in this case and renders moot Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] as moot. SO ORDERED, this 31st day of December, 2025.

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

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 KYLE ROBINSON Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 3:25-cv-00189-TES JARED KNECHT, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

Before Plaintiff Kyle Robinson filed his Amended Complaint [Doc. 26], Defendants Electrical Components International, Inc. (“ECI”), Promark Electronics, Inc. (“Promark”), and Jarred Knecht (“Knecht, collectively, the “Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] the original Complaint [Doc. 8]. 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 h[er] 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”). 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). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and found no reference to, or adoption of, any allegations set forth in its original Complaint. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is the sole operative pleading in this case and renders moot Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] as moot. SO ORDERED, this 31st day of December, 2025.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kyle Robinson v. Jared Knecht, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kyle-robinson-v-jared-knecht-et-al-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack