Plants Wholesale LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
PLANTS WHOLESALE, LLC, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-0565-D
§
MASSACHUSETTS BAY 	§
INSURANCE COMPANY, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
In 	this 	removed 	action, 	defendant 	Massachusetts 	Bay 	Insurance 	Company
(“Massachusetts Bay”) moves for summary judgment on all the claims brought by plaintiff
Plants Wholesale LLC (“Plants Wholesale”). For the reasons that follow, the court denies
the motion as moot and grants Massachusetts Bay leave to file a second motion for summary
judgment.
I
Plants Wholesale initiated this action in Texas state court, asserting claims for breach
of contract and violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Tex. Ins. Code Ann. tit. 5, chs.
541-542. On December 1, 2025 Massachusetts Bay filed a motion for summary judgment
on all of the claims alleged in Plants Wholesale’s state court petition. On February 27, 2026
Plants Wholesale filed an unopposed motion for leave to file an amended petition, which the
court granted the same day. Plants Wholesale then filed its unopposed amended original
petition (which the court will refer to as its “amended complaint”), also on February 27,
Case 3:25-cv-00565-D Document 28 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2026.
The court is now deciding the motion for summary judgment on the briefs, without
oral argument.
II
Courts have recognized that the filing of an amended complaint can render moot a
motion for summary judgment addressed to the original complaint. See, e.g., Griffin v. Am.
Zurich Ins. Co., 697 Fed. Appx. 793, 797 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Once filed, that
amended complaint rendered all earlier motions, including Griffin’s motion for partial
summary judgment, moot.”) (citing King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994) (per
curiam)); Stredwick v. Dall. Margarita Soc’y, Inc., 2012 WL 12893430, at *1 (N.D. Tex.
June 27, 2012) (Furgeson, J.) (“The filing of an amended complaint generally renders
pending motions moot.”); Great Lakes Ins. SE v. La Marche Mfg. Co., 2026 WL 659236, at
*1 (E.D. La. Mar. 9, 2026) (denying motion for summary judgment as moot where pending
motion addressed state court petition that was superseded by amended complaint). The court
may exercise discretion, however, to treat the motion for summary judgment as directed to
the amended complaint where the arguments presented in the motion “apply equally to [the]
amended complaint.” 	Zavala v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 2017 WL
3279158, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2017) (Fitzwater, J.).
In the present case, the amended complaint differs from the state court original
petition in material ways. Plants Wholesale’s amended complaint clarifies that the breach
of contract claim turns on whether an exception to the insurance policy’s exclusion of a
-2-
Case 3:25-cv-00565-D Document 28 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

particular cause of loss applies. Massachusetts Bay’s summary judgment motion does not
address this exception when discussing Plants Wholesale’s alleged loss of business income;
instead, it focuses primarily on what it understood to be Plants Wholesale’s only viable
theory based on the state court petition.1 Moreover, Massachusetts Bay’s motion for
summary judgment moves to dismiss claims under §§ 541.060(a)(1), 541.060(a)(2)(a),
541.060(a)(4), and 541.061 of the Texas Insurance Code. Yet, unlike the state court petition,
the amended complaint does not allege violations of §§ 541.060(a)(1), 541.060(a)(4), or
541.061. 	Instead, the amended complaint asserts that Massachusetts Bay violated §§
541.060(a)(2)(A), 541.060(a)(3) and 541.060(a)(7). Because there are material differences
between the arguments raised in the motion for summary judgment and the changes made in
the amended complaint, the court denies the motion for summary judgment as moot. See
Lofty, LLC v. McKelly Roofing, LLC, 2018 WL 6004307, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018)
(Reno, J.) (denying motion for summary judgment as moot where plaintiff added a new cause
of action and clarified “existing allegations and causes of action”), rec. adopted, 2018 WL
6000147 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2018) (Fitzwater, J.); cf. Hymes v. AmCap Mortg., Ltd., 2019
WL 1748678, at *2-3 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2019) (Rosenthal, C.J.) (denying motion to dismiss
as moot because “amended complaint differ[ed] in important ways from the original
1 Massachusetts Bay does present various arguments in its reply brief regarding
whether this exception entitles Plants Wholesale to the loss business income it seeks to
recover. But arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not considered. See, e.g.,
Jacobs v. Tapscott, 2006 WL 2728827, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2006) (Fitzwater, J.)
(“[T]he court will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief.”), aff’d,
277 Fed. Appx. 483 (5th Cir. 2008).
-3-
Case 3:25-cv-00565-D Document 28 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

complaint, and because the issues related to the amended complaint are most efficiently
addressed and resolved in a single motion”).
III
Although the court is denying the motion for summary judgment as moot, it will grant
Massachusetts Bay leave under N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 56.2(b) to file a second motion for
summary judgment. See Harris v. Amazon.com Inc., 2025 WL 936660, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex.
Mar. 26, 2025) (Horan, J.) (granting leave to file a second motion for summary judgment
after granting leave to amend complaint). The motion must be filed within 28 days of the
date this memorandum opinion and order is filed.2
* 	* 	*
For the reasons explained, the court denies the motion for summary judgment as moot
and grants Massachusetts Bay leave to file a second motion for summary judgment.
SO ORDERED.
March 18, 2026.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE
2Under the April 14, 2025 scheduling order, motions for summary judgment were due
no later than December 1, 2025. It is therefore necessary to extend the deadline in order for
Massachusetts Bay to file a second motion for summary judgment.
This case is currently set for trial on the two-week docket of May 18, 2026. The court
will consider a motion to continue that setting. 	A related case (No. 3:25-CV-03219-D),
which is subject to a pending motion to consolidate with this case, is currently set for trial
on April 5, 2027.
-4-
Case 3:25-cv-00565-D Document 28 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>