# Wilson v. Wright

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · June 2, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063551

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** June 2, 2025
- **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/11063551

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

JERRY SCOTT WILSON, individually )
and on behalf of C.W., his minor )
daughter )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 3:24-cv-01005
v. )
)
MATTHEW WRIGHT, TRAVIS )
LAMPLEY, SCOTT MARTIN, RILEY )
DUNMEYER, and RUTHERFORD )
COUNTY, TENNESSEE )
)
Defendants. )

SCOTT WILSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 3:25-cv-00542
)
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, )
TENNESSEE and JUDGE TRAVIS )
LAMPLEY )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER

On May 23, 2025, the Court consolidated the above-referenced actions because they
involved common questions of law or facts. (Doc. No. 75). In light of the consolidation and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) that amendment of the complaint should be freely given
when justice so requires, the Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 73) in Case No. 3:24-cv-
01005 is GRANTED IN PART. See also Brown v. Chapman, 814 F.3d 436, 442–43 (6th Cir.
2016) (quoting Morse v. McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 800 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Because Rule
15(a)(2) directs courts to ‘freely give leave when justice so requires,’ the rule embodies a ‘liberal
amendment policy.’”).
The Court declines to exercise its discretion and apply the pending motions to dismiss to
the “portion of the amended complaint that are substantially identical to the original complaint.”
(Doc. No. 73 at 1). It would not be an efficient use of judicial resources for the Court to compare
the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 43) and the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 73)
to find the differences. Neither is it the Court’s responsibility to construe the parties’ brief based
upon the Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the following motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos.
51, 53, 55) are DENIED AS MOOT. See Crawford v. Tilley, 15 F.4th 752, 759 (6th Cir. 2021)
(“The general rule is that filing an amended complaint moots pending motions to dismiss.”); Parry
v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000) (acknowledging that when a
plaintiff files an amended complaint, the “new complaint supersedes all previous complaints and
controls ... from that point forward.”).
To advance efficient case management, the Court stays any filings until the case
management conference before Magistrate Judge Holmes. The Clerk is directed to assign Case
No. 3:25-cv-00542 to Magistrate Judge Holmes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Wah. she.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063551. Public record. Not legal advice.