UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TERRA GREEN, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-365

LOVING HEARTS, LLC, ET AL. SECTION: “P” (5)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss,1 which seeks dismissal of all claims asserted in the original complaint filed on February 21, 2025. On May 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.2 The amended complaint contains parties, factual allegations, and causes of action that were not included in the original complaint. Courts vary in how they proceed when a plaintiff files an amended complaint subsequent to a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Many district courts, including this Court, routinely deny as moot any motion to dismiss that is filed prior to an amendment of a complaint.3 Although courts may address the merits of a motion to dismiss after an amended complaint is filed, as a general rule, “if applying the pending motion to the amended complaint would cause confusion or detract from the efficient resolution of the issues, then it makes sense to require the defendant to file a new motion specifically addressing the amended complaint.”4 When an amended complaint alleges more specific facts, motions to dismiss an earlier complaint for failure to state a claim are generally denied as moot.5

1 R. Doc. 7. 2 R. Doc. 9. 3 Goff v. Ocean Harbor Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV 24-1935,

(E.D. La. Jan. 13, 2025) (collecting cases). 4 1 Steven S. Gensler, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 15. 5 See Goff,

, at *1 (citations omitted); Hinojosa v. Merchants & Pro. Bureau, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-835- RP,

, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2020) (citations omitted). Here, as stated above, the amended complaint contains new parties, factual allegations, and causes of action—none of which were addressed in Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. To apply the motion to dismiss to the amended complaint would both add confusion and detract from the efficient resolution of the issues. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have 14 days from the date of this Order to respond to the amended complaint either by filing a new Rule 12 motion or by filing an answer.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of May 2025.

DARREY JAMES MACON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE