United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
THE CINCINNATI SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
J&T'S WAREHOUSE, INC.; RIVER STREET RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC; JANE DOE; and RIVER STREET SWEETS, INC. Defendants. STARSTONE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor,
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
the Court is Plaintiff StarStone Specialty Insurance
Company's ("Starstone") Consent Motion for
Leave to File Supplemental Petition. (Doc. 82.) In its
consent motion, Plaintiff StarStone moves for leave to file a
supplemental petition for declaratory judgment to add
allegations concerning Jane Doe's Third Amended and
Recast Complaint in the underlying lawsuit and allegations
concerning Defendant River Street Sweets, Inc., which was
added as a defendant in this case. (Id. at 1.)
18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ray ordered Plaintiff StarStone to
file a proposed consent motion with an amended petition
complete in its entirety. (Doc. 78 at 2.) Magistrate Judge
Ray also informed Plaintiff Starstone that "[o]nee
Starstone files an amendment, the prior pleading will no
longer serve any function in the case." (Id. at
1.) Plaintiff StarStone has now filed the consent motion with
an amended petition. After careful consideration, Plaintiff
StarStone's motion (Doc. 82) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff StarStone's Supplemental Petition for
Declaratory Judgment, which was filed with its motion for
leave on June 25, 2019, is deemed filed as of the date of
now brings the Court to note that there are two pending
motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff The Cincinnati
Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company
("Cincinnati") filed its motion for summary
judgment on April 4, 2019. (Doc. 50.) Plaintiff StarStone
also filed its motion for summary judgment on April 22, 2019.
(Doc. 53.) However, subsequently, Plaintiff Cincinnati moved
for leave to file a second amended complaint in this case to
add Defendant River Street Sweets, Inc. as a defendant. (Doc.
55.) Magistrate Judge Ray granted that motion and Plaintiff
Cincinnati's second amended complaint was deemed filed as
of the date of Magistrate Judge Ray's order. (Doc. 56.}
Defendants J&T's Warehouse, Inc., River Street
Restaurant Group, LLC, and River Street Sweets, Inc.
(hereinafter "Corporate Defendants"} filed their
omnibus response in opposition to Plaintiff Cincinnati's
motion for summary j udgment and Plaintiff StarStone's
motion for summary j udgment on May 22, 2019. (Doc. 67.)
Defendant Jane Doe filed her omnibus response in opposition
to the Plaintiffs' respective motions for summary
judgment on May 17, 2019. (Doc. 70.) Plaintiff StarStone has
now filed its own amended petition for declaratory judgment.
there have been amended petitions filed since Plaintiffs have
filed their motions for summary judgment, the Court finds
that these motions for summary judgment have become moot.
Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241,
1243 (11th Cir. 2007) ("As a general matter,, [a]n
amended pleading supersedes the former pleading; the original
pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a
part of the pleader's averments against his
adversary." (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)); Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp.,
193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.l (11th Cir. 1999) ("An amended
complaint supersedes an original complaint."). Courts
routinely find that an amended complaint renders motions
directed against the original complaint moot. See
Robinson v. Wings of Alpharetta, Inc., No. 1:
11-CV-01579, 2011 WL 13308540, at *3 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 19, 2011)
(denying the defendants' motions to dismiss as moot
because the court was granting the plaintiff's motion to
file an amended complaint); Reeves Constr. Co. v. Baker
Constructors, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-73, 2019 WL 1292306, at
*2 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2019) (denying as moot the
defendant's motion to dismiss due to the filing of the
plaintiff's first amended complaint); Wimberly v.
Broome, No. 6:15-CV-23, 2016 WL 3264346, at *1 (S.D. Ga.
Mar. 29, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No.
6:15-CV-2 3, 2016 WL 33 60521 (S.D. Ga. June 14, 2016)
(collecting cases). Additionally, as the Magistrate Judge
noted in his previous order, once an amended complaint or
petition is filed, the old petition serves no operative
purpose. (Doc. 78 at 1.) Therefore, although the Court
recognizes the fact that the allegations have not materially
changed in this action and that all Defendants have responded
to the motions for summary judgment, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment are due to be
dismissed as moot.
result, Plaintiff Cincinnati's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 50) and Plaintiff StarStone's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 53} are DISMISSED AS
MOOT. Defendants SHALL have
thirty days from the date of this order to
answer Plaintiff StarStone's amended petition and
Plaintiffs SHALL have ninety
days from the date of this order to file any renewed
motions for summary judgment.
 The parties should be aware that the
Court will not accept any motion or response that
incorporates by reference any factual allegation or argument
contained in an earlier filing. Each motion and response
should be a stand-alone filing that independently contains
all the factual allegations ...