O'Quinn v. TAU South, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRUCE O'QUINN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
TAU SOUTH, LLC, ET AL. NO. 25-00156-BAJ-SDJ
ORDER
Before the Court is Cross Defendant DG Louisiana, LLC's Motion to
Dismiss Crossclaim. (Doc. 31). Since the filing of Cross Defendants Motion to
Dismiss, the Court granted Cross Claimant Tau South, LLC leave to file an Amended
Answer and Crossclaim (Docs. 33, 34), and Cross Defendant DG Louisiana filed its
own Answer in response. (Doc. 35).
Courts vary in approach when a plaintiff or cross claimant amends their
complaint or crossclaim while a Rule 12 motion is pending. See Melson v. Vista World
Inc. &ASSOCS., No. CIV.A. 12-135, 2012 WL 6002680, at *12 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2012).
Nonetheless, "many district courts — including those in this Circuit — routinely deny
as moot motions to dismiss that are filed prior to an amendment of a complaint." La.
v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. CV 19-638-SDD-SDJ, 2020 WL 3966875, at *5 (M.D. La.
July 13, 2020) (citing Garcia v. City ofAmarillo, Tex., No. 2:18-CV-95-D-BR, 2018 WL
6272461, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No.
2:18-CV-095-D, 2018 WL 6268222 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018), at *1 ("[A]n amended
complaint, which supersedes the original complaint as the operative live pleading,
1
Case 3:25-cv-00156-BAJ-SDJ Document 37 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3

renders moot a motion to dismiss the original complaint.")); Xtria, LLC v. Int'l Ins.
All. Inc., No. CIV.A.309-CV-2228-D, 2010 WL 1644895, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22,
2010) ("Because [the plaintiff] has been granted leave to amend, [the defendant's]
motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings are denied without prejudice
as moot.") (additional citations omitted)).
While a court may apply a pending Rule 12 motion to a newly amended
complaint, or answer, in the case of a crossclaim, it should nonetheless deny the
pending motion as moot if that application "would cause confusion or detract from the
efficient resolution of the issues ..." Rodgers on Behalf of CJTJ v. Gusman, No. CV
16-16303, 2019 WL 186669 at *2(E.D. La.Jan. 14, 2019) (In that situation, "it makes
sense to require the defendant to file a new motion specifically addressing the
amended complaint.").
Here, Cross Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) was based on Cross
Claimant's procedural failure to include its crossclaim as part of its Answer to the
Complaint. Cross Claimaint's Amended Answer (Doc. 34) now includes the crossclaim
as part of its responsive pleading as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.
Cross Defendant has already re-filed its own Answer (Doc. 35) in response to Cross
Claimant's Answer to Complaint. (Doc. 34). To promote the efficient resolution of this
matter, the Court will deny Cross Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss Crossclaim
(Doc. 31) as moot.
Case 3:25-cv-00156-BAJ-SDJ Document 37 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that DG Louisiana, LLC's Motion to Dismiss
Crossclaim (Doc. 31) be and is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this *"*'day of February, 2026
L^
^a:
JUDGE BRIAN A. </AJCKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 3:25-cv-00156-BAJ-SDJ Document 37 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3