IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAROBERT LEE TISDALE PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-cv-335-TBM-RPM

DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION DEFENDANT

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss [6] filed by Defendant Dollar General Corporation on December 18, 2024. In response to Dollar General’s Motion to Dismiss [6], Plaintiff LaRobert Lee Tisdale filed a Motion [10] to amend his complaint, which was granted. As a result, Tisdale filed an Amended Complaint [12] on February 10, 2025, and the operative Complaint [15] on February 19, 2025. “[T]he filing of an amended complaint will ordinarily moot a pending motion to dismiss unless the amended complaint Ëon its face’ fails to address the alleged defects identified in the motion to dismiss.” Johansen v. Myers, No. 1:23-cv-6-LG,

, *2 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 24, 2023) (citation omitted); Polk v. Psychiatric Prof’l Servs., Inc., No. 09-cv-799,

, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2010) (“[W]hen a motion to amend only addresses a discrete issue, it may not moot the underlying motion to dismiss.”). Tisdale’s Corrected First Amended Complaint [15], on its face, appears to attempt to address the alleged defects identified in the Motion to Dismiss [6]. Regardless, by filing its new Motion to Dismiss [16], which contains modified and updated arguments that attack the operative Complaint [15] and its new allegations, Dollar General seems to agree the original Motion to Dismiss [6] is moot. Rivera v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-7,

, *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2019). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Dollar General Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss [6] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. This, the 16th day of June, 2025.

___________________________ TAYLOR B. McNEEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE