Opinion
23-12980
02-15-2024
Dean Myslivecek, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA U.S. LLC, Defendant.
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD, MAG. JUDGE
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [10]
JUDITH E. LEVY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Dean Myslivecek filed a putative class action complaint on November 22, 2023, against Defendant FCA U.S. LLC. (ECF No. 1.) On January 29, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff Myslivecek then filed an amended complaint within twenty-one days, on February 13, 2024. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff Myslivecek's amended complaint contains numerous changes, including adding and changing the Counts alleged. (ECF No. 1 (bringing nine counts); ECF No. 19 (bringing twenty-two counts).)
Without expressing any view as to whether the amended complaint cures the purported deficiencies claimed in the motion to dismiss, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT Defendant's motion to dismiss in light of the filing of the amended complaint. “[A]n amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints.” Drake v. City of Detroit, 266 Fed. App'x. 444, 448 (6th Cir. 2008). “It follows that ‘motions directed at the superseded pleading,'” such as Defendant's motion here, “generally are to be denied as moot.” Nails v. RPI-Section 8 Housing, 2019 WL 1112381, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2019) (quoting Heard v. Strange, 2018 WL 4189652, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 21, 2018)) (collecting cases) report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4184633 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2018); see also Braden v. United States, 817 F.3d 926, 930 (6th Cir. 2016) (“An amended pleading supersedes a former pleading if the amended pleading is complete in itself and does not refer to or adopt a former pleading.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint by right. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B) (a complaint may be amended as of right once within 21 days of the filing of a motion to dismiss). The first amended complaint is complete in itself and makes no reference to the initial complaint.
Accordingly, Defendant is directed to file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint within 30 days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.