Jewell v. WalMart, Inc. ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ANTHONY JEWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 4:19-cv-4088 WALMART INC. and DOES 1-100 DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is the Defendant Walmart Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 26). The Court finds that no response is necessary and that the matter is ripe for consideration. On February 10, 2020, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff Anthony Jewell’s first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 33). It is well established that the filing of amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, thereby rendering it inoperative and without legal effect. See In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, after a complaint is amended, motions directed at the original complaint should be denied as moot, without prejudice to their refiling as to the amended complaint. Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 20) is now inoperative and superseded by the second amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court finds that the pending motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 26), which is directed at the first amended complaint, is moot and is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of April, 2020. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge