Lebeouf v. Mannings, No. 2:2012cv02583 - Document 32 (E.D. La. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - because plaintiff amended her complaint, there is nothing for this Court to reconsider. Plaintiff's motion 26 to reconsider is therefore denied as moot, and the Court will address all of the parties' arguments in the context of defendant's second motion to dismiss.. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/19/13. (jjs, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lebeouf v. Mannings Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA STACY LEBEOUF CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 12-2583 BAIN MANNING SECTION: “R”(2) ORDER AND REASONS On June 26, 2013, this Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.1 The Court provided plaintiff 21 days to amend her complaint.2 On July 17, 2013, plaintiff requested leave to file her second amended complaint.3 Also on July 17, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider this Court's June 26, 2013, Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss.4 The Court then granted plaintiff's motion to file her second amended complaint.5 Because plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint,6 this Court's previous order dismissing her first amended complaint is no longer relevant. See, e.g., In re Atlas Van 1 R. Doc. 25. 2 Id. at 11-12. 3 R. Doc. 27. 4 R. Doc. 26. 5 R. Doc. 28. 6 R. Doc. 29. Dockets.Justia.com Lines, 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2008) ("It is well- established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect."); Vadas v. United States, 527 F.3d 16, 22 n.4 (2d Cir. 2007). Accordingly, because plaintiff amended her complaint, there is nothing for this Court to reconsider. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider is therefore denied as moot,7 and the Court will address all of the parties' arguments in the context of defendant's second motion to dismiss.8 New Orleans, Louisiana, this ______ day of August, 2013. 19th SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 R. Doc. 26. 8 R. Doc. 31. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
