Green v. United Parcel Service Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROBERT GREEN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-4435
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.
(Ohio)’s (“Defendant”) Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss. 	(ECF No. 11). 	Based
on 	a 	review 	of 	the 	motion, 	arguments, 	and 	relevant 	law, 	the 	Court
RECOMMENDS Defendant’s Motion (id.) be DENIED AS MOOT AND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff Robert Green, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on September 18,
2025 against Defendant, his employer. 	(ECF No. 1). 	In his three-page
Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he was discriminated against and treated
differently based on his race and religion, and that he was retaliated against
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 8).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04435 Document 30 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
for opposing discrimination and filing his Charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Id. at 1–2).
On November 7, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion, arguing
Plaintiff 	alleged 	insufficient 	facts 	to 	establish 	a 	plausible 	claim 	against
Defendant for religious discrimination, race discrimination, or retaliation.
(ECF No. 11). 	In response, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, entitled
“Plaintiff’s Expanded First Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 16).
“The filing of an amended complaint generally renders pending motions
moot.” Tanner v. Loving Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 25-cv-033, 2026 WL 454992,
at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, No. 25-
cv-033, 	2026 	WL 	451427 	(W.D. 	Tex. 	Feb. 	17, 	2026) 	(internal 	quotations
omitted) (collecting cases); see also Hymes v. AmCap Mortg., Ltd., No. 19-cv-
515, 2019 WL 1748678, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2019) (collecting cases). This
is particularly true when an amended complaint adds new claims or factual
information. 	See Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., No. 14-cv-1030, 2015 WL 10990119, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2015)
(“Especially given the substantive changes in the amended complaint, new
causes of action, and more specific facts about the infringement that may go to
the heart of the motion to dismiss, the Court finds State Farm’s motion to
dismiss is moot.”).
Case 4:25-cv-04435 Document 30 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains new factual information,
including, 	but 	not 	limited 	to, 	allegations 	regarding 	his 	religion, 	other
employees, and interactions with Defendant. 	(See ECF No. 16). 	Given these
substantive 	differences, 	Defendant 	should 	file 	a 	new 	motion 	to 	dismiss
targeted specifically at Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which is now the
operative pleading. 	See Hymes, 2019 WL 1748678, at *3 (“Because the
amended complaint differs in important ways from the original complaint, and
because the issues related to the amended complaint are most efficiently
addressed and resolved in a single motion to dismiss, the court denies the
Lenders’ motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice.”).
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendant’s Rule
12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) be DENIED AS MOOT AND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
Case 4:25-cv-04435 Document 30 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on May 21, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04435 Document 30 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4