Case Information
*1 Case 1:23-cv-00084-MJT Document 95 Filed 06/26/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION
ADAMS BAYOU MARINE §
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, §
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. §
§
DOUBLE CHINE, LLC, §
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, §
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-00084 VS. § JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE
§
MARY E. SNEED FAMILY TRUST; §
WAYNE PEVETO, INDIVIDUALLY AND §
AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARY E. SNEED §
FAMILY TRUST; THE ESTATE OF §
MARY E. SNEED, DECEASED; §
MARTIN M. SNEED FAMILY TRUST; §
NON-EXEMPT DESCENDANTS TRUST; §
EXEMPT DESCENDANTS TRUST; AND §
CLYDE SNEED, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS §
INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF §
THE ESTATE OF MARY E. SNEED, §
DECEASED, AS TRUSTEE OF THE §
MARTIN M. SNEED FAMILY TRUST; §
THE NON-EXEMPT DESCENDANTS; AND §
EXEMPT DESCENDANTS TRUST, §
Third-Party Defendants. §
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT DOUBLE CHINE, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is Defendant Double Chine, LLC (“Double Chine”)’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 74]. Double Chine filed its motion in this Court on March 24, 2025. Id. After the Court granted its motion for leave to file a late Response [Dkts. 81, 86], Plaintiff Adams Bayou Marine Management Company, LLC (“Adams Bayou”)’s Response became a part of the record on April 20, 2025.
[Dkt. 83]. Double Chine did not file a Reply.
On June 25, 2025, the Court granted Adams Bayou’s Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff’s Second ____________________________ Michael J. Truncale Amended Complaint. [Dkts. 92, 94]. The motion was unopposed. See [Dkt. 92]. As such, Adams Bayou’s Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. 91] became a part of the record on June 25, 2025.
Case 1:23-cv-00084-MJT Document 95 Filed 06/26/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3014
The Second Amended Complaint introduces fresh allegations and attachments that were not addressed in Double Chine’s motion for summary judgment. See generally [Dkts. 74, 91]. Given these circumstances, and the ever-present interest of judicial efficiency, [1] the Court will deny Double Chine’s motion:
As for Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, “an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc. , 759 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant did not address issues pleaded for the first time in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. ( See Doc. 25). Accordingly, the Court will not attempt to determine which of Defendant’s arguments remain viable in light of the Amended Complaint. Instead, the Court deniess [sic] as moot Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and will allow Defendant to file an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Amended Complaint.
Payne v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC , No. MO:18-CV-00224-DC, 2019 WL 9197604, at *4 (W.D. Tex.
Oct. 25, 2019).
For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that Defendant Double Chine, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. 74] is hereby DENIED AS MOOT . This denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of an amended motion. [2]
SIGNED this 26th day of June, 2025.
[1] See F ED . R. C IV . P. 1 (emphasis added) (providing that the Rules “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court . . . to secure the just, speedy , and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”).
[2] Although the dispositive motions deadline has expired under the operative Scheduling Order [Dkt. 89 at 2], the Court anticipates a request for a continuance in light of the Second Amended Complaint. 2