Paige v. Digital Business Networks Alliance, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Michele Paige,
Plaintiff,
v.
Digital Business Networks Alliance,
Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-02687
MEMORANDUM, RECOMMENDATION, AND ORDER
This is an employment dispute. 	Although the case is still in its early
stages, Plaintiff Michele Paige and Defendants McGinnis Lochridge, LLP,
Philip Schmandt, OFS Portal, LLC, and Digital Business Networks Alliance,
Inc. have engaged in extensive motion practice. The Court resolves several of
the pending motions now.
First, Paige’s amended complaint moots Defendants’ motions to dismiss
(Dkts. 46, 49, 53) her original complaint. “It is well-settled in the Fifth Circuit
that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and the original
complaint has no legal effect, except to the extent that it is incorporated by
reference into the amended complaint.” See Freilich v. Green Energy Res., Inc.,
297 F.R.D. 277, 282 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (citing Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 603
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02687 Document 79 Filed 07/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
(5th Cir.1996)). 	Accordingly, “[t]he filing of an amended complaint generally
renders pending motions moot.” Stredwick v. Dall. Margarita Soc’y, Inc., 2012
WL 12893430, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2012) (citations omitted) (collecting
cases). Because the motions to dismiss the original complaint are moot, Paige’s
motions to strike (Dkts. 51, 54, 59) those filings are also denied.
Moreover, 	Paige’s 	arguments 	for 	striking 	Defendants’ 	motions 	are
meritless. 	Paige contends that Defendants’ motions to dismiss should be
stricken under Rule 12(g)(2) because Defendants already filed motions to
dismiss in a separate action in the United States District for the Southern
District of New York. 	See Dkt. 59. 	Indeed, the federal rules limit parties’
abilities to file successive Rule 12 motions. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2) (“A
party that makes a motion under this rule must not make another motion
under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party
but omitted from its earlier motion.”). 	But that rule does not apply here
because Defendants have not impermissibly filed successive motions.
Paige’s case in the Southern District of Texas was dismissed without
prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Paige v. Digital Bus. Networks All.,
Inc., 2026 WL 880549 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026). 	She then filed a new suit in
this Court. 	The motions that Paige seeks to strike (Dkts. 46, 49, 53) are
Defendants’ first responsive pleadings in this case. That is permissible.
Case 4:26-cv-02687 Document 79 Filed 07/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Second, on May 6, 2026, Paige filed a motion to compel Defendants to
participate 	in 	a 	Rule 	26(f) 	conference. 	See 	Dkt. 	28; 	see 	also 	Dkt. 	29
(memorandum of law). 1 	But, as she later admitted, that request is now moot
because the parties agreed to hold the Rule 26(f) conference on June 8, 2026.
See Dkt. 50 at 4; see also Dkt. 42-3 at 2-5 (scheduling conference). The parties
must confer and submit a joint discovery/case management plan “not less than
10 days before the conference ….” Dkt. 37.
Going forward, the Court expects the parties to make a good faith
attempt to resolve future scheduling disputes without Court intervention. And
all parties must carefully review the undersigned’s requirements for pre-
motion conferences and legal briefs, which apply to this referral case. 	Non-
compliant submissions will be stricken.
Recommendation and Conclusion
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Defendants McGinnis Lochridge,
LLP’s, Philip Schmandt’s, OFS Portal, LLC’s, and Digital Business Networks
Alliance, Inc.’s motions to dismiss (Dkts. 46, 49, 53) Plaintiff Michele Paige’s
original complaint be DENIED as moot.
1 The undersigned’s procedures do not permit separate memoranda of law. “All
motions 	must 	include 	the 	arguments 	and 	relief 	sought.” 	Judge 	Ho’s
Procedures § 5(d)(1).
Case 4:26-cv-02687 Document 79 Filed 07/02/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
It is ORDERED that Paige’s motions to strike (Dkts. 51, 54, 59) those
same motions to dismiss be DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Paige’s motion to compel Defendants’
participation in a Rule 26(f) conference be DENIED.
Signed on July 2, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
n, Texas.
_________________________________________
Yvoon	n	nn	ne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02687 Document 79 Filed 07/02/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4