# Bardell v. Jefferson Parish School Board

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · February 1, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10187455

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** February 1, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10187455

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating in dicta that “the filing of that amended complaint . . . would have rendered moot defendants’ motions to dismiss”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DEREK BARDELL
CIVIL ACTION NO: 20-03245
Plaintiff,
SECTION: L
VERSUS
JUDGE FALLON
JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
MAGISTRATE VAN MEERVELD
Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant Jefferson Parish School Board filed a motion to dismiss ("Motion") Plaintiff Derek
Bardell's "Complaint, Amended Complaint, and Seconded Amended/Supplemental Complaint." R. Doc. 36.
Subsequently, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, R. Doc. 57, which has
since been filed. R. Doc. 60. The Third Amended Complaint incorporates by reference certain allegations in
the original Complaint and substantially adds to those allegations. R. Doc. 60.
As a number of other courts have recognized, a plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint may render
moot a pending motion to dismiss. See Rodriguez v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, No. EP-16-CV-41-DB, 2016
WL 8674378, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2016) (citing, inter alia, Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. SA–14–CV–1030–XR, 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.”); Merritt v. Fogel, 349 F. App'x. 742, 745 (3d Cir. 2009) (stating in dicta
that “the filing of that amended complaint . . . would have rendered moot defendants’ motions to dismiss”);
Calloway v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 599 F. Supp. 2d 543, 546 (D. Del. 2009 (“As the amended
complaint has superseded the original, defendant's motion to dismiss has become moot.”); Abb, Inc. v. Reed
City Power Line Supply Co., No. 1:07–cv–420, 2007 WL 2713731, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2007)
(“Because the original complaint has been superseded and nullified, there is no longer a live dispute about
the propriety or merit of the claims asserted therein; therefore, any motion to dismiss such claims is moot.”)).
Here, the Third Amended Complaint adds a number of new allegations "whose effect on the Motion's
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, R. Doc. 36, is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion to Strike, Continue, or Reset 12(b)(6)" is
DENIED as moot.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of February, 2022.

United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10187455. Public record. Not legal advice.