Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-00464
03-14-2017
SAMUEL GIPSON, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L.P., et al, Defendants.
ORDER
On this date, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (D.E. 25), which does not reference his earlier complaint. "An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleading." King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir.1985)). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion addressed to a superseded complaint is moot. See generally, Van Deelen v. Cain, 628 F. App'x 891, 900 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting that prior motions to dismiss had been mooted by prior amended complaints). See also, Maxim Integrated Prod., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. SA-14-CV-1030-XR, 2015 WL 10990119, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2015) (citing Merritt v. Fogel, 349 F. App'x 742, 745 (3d Cir. 2009)). Consequently, the Court terminates as moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 20).
ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2017.
/s/_________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE