ROBINSON v. KNECHT et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
KYLE ROBINSON
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED KNECHT, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:25-cv-00189-TES
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
Before Plaintiff Kyle Robinson filed his Amended Complaint [Doc. 26],
Defendants Electrical Components International, Inc. (“ECI”), Promark Electronics, Inc.
(“Promark”), and Jarred Knecht (“Knecht, collectively, the “Defendants”) filed their
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] the original Complaint [Doc. 8].
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 pleader’s
averments against h[er] 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 Miami, 811 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
Case 3:25-cv-00189-TES Document 28 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 2

2
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complaint because the motion seeks to dismiss a pleading that has been superseded.”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).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and found no reference
to, or adoption of, any allegations set forth in its original Complaint. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is the sole operative pleading in this case and renders
moot Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of December, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00189-TES Document 28 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 2