C. et al v. WALTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
E.C., by and through his parent,
TONESHIA C., and TONESHIA C.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WALTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
and TARA GEISER, in her individual
capacity,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:25-cv-00158-TES
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
In their Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8], Defendants Walton County School District
and Tara Geiser (collectively “Defendants”) argue, inter alia, that the Complaint [Doc. 1]
filed by Plaintiffs E.C., a minor child, and his mother, Toneshia C., is a shotgun
pleading. See [Doc. 8, pp. 7–10]. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. 11].
Under black letter federal law, “an amended complaint supersedes the initial
complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483
F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). This means that “the original
pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and [it] is no longer a part of the [pleaders’]
averments against [their] adversary.” Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463
F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see also Hoefling v. City of Mia., 811
Case 3:25-cv-00158-TES Document 12 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 2

2
F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (initial pleading “bec[o]me[s] a legal nullity”). Further,
an original complaint would still have legal effect if “the amendment specifically refers
to or adopts the earlier pleading.” Varnes v. Local 91, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass’n, 674 F.2d
1365, 1370 n.6 (11th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). An amended complaint that does not
incorporate the prior pleading, however, moots “the motion to dismiss the original
complaint because the motion seeks to dismiss a pleading that has been superseded.”
Wimberly v. Broome, No. 6:15-cv-23, 2016 WL 3264346, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2016)
(citing cases).
Here, Plaintiffs state, in their Amended Complaint, that Defendants’ motion is
now moot in light of Plaintiffs’ amended pleading. [Doc. 11, p. 1 n.1]. Based on
Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants’ motion is moot, it’s clear that Plaintiffs intend for
their original Complaint to be superseded by their Amended Complaint. With no
reference to, or adoption of, any allegations set forth in their original Complaint,
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is the sole operative pleading in this case and renders
moot Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8] as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:25-cv-00158-TES Document 12 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 2