United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
CLARENCE JOHNSON, JR. PLAINTIFF
ALLEGIANCE SPECIALITY HOSPITAL OF GREENVILLE, LLC DEFENDANT
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Allegiance Specialty Hospital of Greenville,
LLC's, motion to dismiss. Doc. #3.
October 5, 2018, Clarence Johnson, Jr. filed a complaint in
the Circuit Court of Washington County, Mississippi, against
Allegiance Specialty Hospital of Greenville, LLC, asserting
claims for wrongful termination, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, reckless infliction of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and
negligence related to the termination of his
employment with Allegiance. Doc. #2 at 7-9. On November 1,
2018, Allegiance, relying on diversity jurisdiction, removed
the state court action to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi. Doc. #1 at 1-2. The
next day, Allegiance filed a motion to dismiss all of
Johnson's claims for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Doc. #3. Johnson filed an untimely
response opposing the motion on December 6, 2018. Doc. #11.
February 28, 2019, Johnson moved to amend the complaint. Doc.
#20. United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden granted
the motion to amend on April 12, 2019. Doc. #25. On April 22,
2019, Johnson filed an amended complaint against
Allegiance. Doc. #26. The amended complaint dropped
the reckless infliction of emotional distress, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and negligence claims. The
amended complaint also added a breach of contract claim as
well as Title VII claims for hostile work environment and
wrongful termination based on race. Id. at 5-7,
8-11. Allegiance filed an answer to the amended complaint on
May 7, 2019. Doc. #27.
general rule, “[a]n amended complaint supersedes the
original complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless
the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or
incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.”
King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the filing of an amended complaint will
ordinarily moot a pending motion to dismiss unless the
amended complaint “on its face” fails to address
the alleged defects identified in the motion to dismiss.
See McIntyre v. City of Rochester, 228 F.Supp.3d
241, 241-42 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (finding motion to dismiss moot
where “[a]t least on its face, the amended complaint
appears to address those alleged defects” identified by
motion to dismiss); Polk v. Psychiatric Prof'l
Servs., Inc., No. 09-CV-799, 2010 WL 1908252, 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.”).
filed his amended complaint after Allegiance filed its motion
to dismiss. The amended complaint, on its face, appears to
address the defects identified in the motion to dismiss as to
the claims for wrongful termination and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. See Doc. #26 at
4-5, 7-8. Consequently, Johnson's amended complaint
superseded his original complaint and rendered the original
complaint of no legal effect. For this reason,
Allegiance's motion to dismiss  is DENIED as
 The caption of the original complaint
and the caption of the amended complaint use
“Speciality” instead of “Specialty.”
As to the caption of this order, the Court uses the spelling
of the complaints. But, because the defendant has used
“Specialty” in all of its filings, the Court uses
“Specialty” in the body of this order.
 Johnson's negligence claim
appeared to be pleaded in the “Damages” section
of the complaint. Doc. #2 at 9.
 The motion states it was filed
“pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Mississippi Rules of
Civil Procedure.” Doc. #3 at 1. The accompanying
memorandum states dismissal is sought “pursuant to Rule
12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Doc. #4
at 1. The same day it filed the ...