Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. C-10-122.
October 21, 2010
ORDER
On this day came on to be considered Defendant William Hobb's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. (D.E. 18.) For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.
I. Procedural Background
II. Discussion
King v. Dogan31 F.3d 344346see Carroll v. Fort James Corp470 F.3d 11711176See Timberlake v. Synthes Spine, Inc.2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17440see also Vinewood Capital, LLC v. Dar Al-Maal Al-Islami Trust295 Fed. Appx. 726 729
In this case, the First Amended Complaint (D.E. 28) was filed after Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 18). The First Amended Complaint does not refer to, adopt, or incorporate by reference earlier pleadings. (D.E. 28.) Thus, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is the only effective complaint. See King, 31 F.3d at 346. Because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss addresses the non-operative Original Complaint, it is moot in light of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. See Timberlake, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17440, *10-11.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, this Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. (D.E. 18.)
SIGNED and ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2010.