NetList Inc (NLST)

[Jetmek_03052]

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 39 Filed 07/19/24

Gilstrap Denies Microns Motion to Dismiss

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.226945/gov.uscourts.txed.226945.39.0.pdf

ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the “Motion to Dismiss”) filed by Defendants Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC (collectively,
“Micron”). (Dkt. No. 7.)

In the Motion to Dismiss, Micron seeks the dismissal of Plaintiff Netlist, Inc.’s (“Netlist”) Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). (Dkt. No. 7 at 1.)
Since the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 14.)


It is well established that a later-filed amended complaint moots a motion asking the Court
to dismiss an earlier-filed complaint. See Griffin v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 697 F. App’x 793, 797 (5th
Cir. 2017) (“Once filed, that amended complaint rendered all earlier motions … moot.”); see also
Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00139-JRG, Dkt. No. 40 (E.D.
Tex. Oct. 4, 2021) (“Once Plaintiff filed its amended complaint, the Motion became moot.”);
Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Eaton Corp. PLC, No. 2:19-CV-00290-JRG, 2019 WL
11250161, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2019) (“Accordingly, the filing of an amended complaint moots
a motion to dismiss the original complaint.”).

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) should be and hereby
is DENIED-AS-MOOT.
.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of July,