United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division
R. L. ROSS, Plaintiff,
DONALD BACHAND, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT AND CANCELLING HEARING
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United States District Judge
On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff R. L. Ross filed a complaint against twelve Defendants, alleging numerous violations of state and federal law. Seven Defendants filed an answer to the complaint with affirmative defenses. ECF No. 6. Ross, in turn, then filed a motion to strike the affirmative defenses in the Defendants’ answer. ECF No. 15.
Five of the Defendants file a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 13. The Court therefore set the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike affirmative defenses for hearing on April 7, 2015.
On February 2, 2015, Ross filed a First Amendment Complaint. ECF No. 23. Ross’s amended complaint supersedes the original complaint for all purposes. Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 410 (6th Cir. 2014). “The filing of the amended complaint ‘render[s] the original complaint null and void.” Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (quoting Vadas v. United States, 527 F.3d 16, 22 n.4 (2d Cir. 2007)).
Because the original complaint has been superseded, there is no longer a live dispute about the merits of the claims asserted in it. See Cedar View, Ltd. v. Colpetzer, 2006 WL 456482, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2006) (the “earlier motion to dismiss . . . and motion for judgment on the pleadings . . . are denied as moot, as they refer to a version of the complaint that has since been replaced . . . .”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Ross’s Complaint (ECF No. 13) is DENIED AS MOOT It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion ...