Wilson v. Wright

M.D. Tennessee

Wilson v. Wright

DecidedJune 2, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-01005

StatusUnknown

This text of Wilson v. Wright (Wilson v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Wright, (M.D. Tenn. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

JERRY SCOTT WILSON, individually ) and on behalf of C.W., his minor ) daughter ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 3:24-cv-01005 v. ) ) MATTHEW WRIGHT, TRAVIS ) LAMPLEY, SCOTT MARTIN, RILEY ) DUNMEYER, and RUTHERFORD ) COUNTY, TENNESSEE ) ) Defendants. )

SCOTT WILSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:25-cv-00542 ) RUTHERFORD COUNTY, ) TENNESSEE and JUDGE TRAVIS ) LAMPLEY ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER

On May 23, 2025, the Court consolidated the above-referenced actions because they involved common questions of law or facts. (Doc. No. 75). In light of the consolidation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) that amendment of the complaint should be freely given when justice so requires, the Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 73) in Case No. 3:24-cv- 01005 is GRANTED IN PART. See also Brown v. Chapman, 814 F.3d 436, 442–43 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Morse v. McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 800 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Because Rule 15(a)(2) directs courts to ‘freely give leave when justice so requires,’ the rule embodies a ‘liberal amendment policy.’”). The Court declines to exercise its discretion and apply the pending motions to dismiss to the “portion of the amended complaint that are substantially identical to the original complaint.” (Doc. No. 73 at 1). It would not be an efficient use of judicial resources for the Court to compare the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 43) and the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 73) to find the differences. Neither is it the Court’s responsibility to construe the parties’ brief based upon the Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the following motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 51, 53, 55) are DENIED AS MOOT. See Crawford v. Tilley, 15 F.4th 752, 759 (6th Cir. 2021) (“The general rule is that filing an amended complaint moots pending motions to dismiss.”); Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000) (acknowledging that when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the “new complaint supersedes all previous complaints and controls ... from that point forward.”). To advance efficient case management, the Court stays any filings until the case management conference before Magistrate Judge Holmes. The Clerk is directed to assign Case No. 3:25-cv-00542 to Magistrate Judge Holmes. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Wah. she. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

JERRY SCOTT WILSON, individually ) and on behalf of C.W., his minor ) daughter ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 3:24-cv-01005 v. ) ) MATTHEW WRIGHT, TRAVIS ) LAMPLEY, SCOTT MARTIN, RILEY ) DUNMEYER, and RUTHERFORD ) COUNTY, TENNESSEE ) ) Defendants. )

SCOTT WILSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:25-cv-00542 ) RUTHERFORD COUNTY, ) TENNESSEE and JUDGE TRAVIS ) LAMPLEY ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER

On May 23, 2025, the Court consolidated the above-referenced actions because they involved common questions of law or facts. (Doc. No. 75). In light of the consolidation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) that amendment of the complaint should be freely given when justice so requires, the Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 73) in Case No. 3:24-cv- 01005 is GRANTED IN PART. See also Brown v. Chapman, 814 F.3d 436, 442–43 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Morse v. McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 800 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Because Rule 15(a)(2) directs courts to ‘freely give leave when justice so requires,’ the rule embodies a ‘liberal amendment policy.’”). The Court declines to exercise its discretion and apply the pending motions to dismiss to the “portion of the amended complaint that are substantially identical to the original complaint.” (Doc. No. 73 at 1). It would not be an efficient use of judicial resources for the Court to compare the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 43) and the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 73) to find the differences. Neither is it the Court’s responsibility to construe the parties’ brief based upon the Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the following motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 51, 53, 55) are DENIED AS MOOT. See Crawford v. Tilley, 15 F.4th 752, 759 (6th Cir. 2021) (“The general rule is that filing an amended complaint moots pending motions to dismiss.”); Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000) (acknowledging that when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the “new complaint supersedes all previous complaints and controls ... from that point forward.”). To advance efficient case management, the Court stays any filings until the case management conference before Magistrate Judge Holmes. The Clerk is directed to assign Case No. 3:25-cv-00542 to Magistrate Judge Holmes. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Wah. she. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilson v. Wright, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-wright-tnmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack