Kendell Seafood Imports, Inc. v. Mark Foods, LLC

── Kendell Seafood Imports, Inc. v. Mark Foods, LLC ── Case No.: 25-1469 Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: March 27, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 25-1469 KENDELL SEAFOOD IMPORTS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MARK FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. William E. Smith, U.S. District Judge] Before Montecalvo, Lipez, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. John O. Mancini, with whom Mancini Carter, PC, was on brief, for appellant. Joshua C. Krumholz, with whom Sadie Milka and Holland & Knight LLP were on brief, for appellee. March 27, 2026  MONTECALVO, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Kendell Seafood Imports, Inc. ("Kendell"), appeals the district court's order granting a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant-Appellee Mark Foods, LLC ("Mark Foods"). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court's order. I. In October 2024, Kendell filed its initial Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island alleging one count of "tortious interference" against Mark Foods. Kendell and Mark Foods both import fish, and Kendell contends that Mark Foods interfered with Kendell's agreement with a fish distributer, Chilean Sea Bass, Inc. ("CSB"). Mark Foods moved to dismiss the initial Complaint in November 2024. Then, in December 2024, Kendell filed an Amended Complaint ("AC"), again alleging one count of "tortious interference" against Mark Foods.1 That same day, Kendell also filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court should not apply the motion to dismiss to the AC but also opposing the motion on substantive grounds. Mark Foods filed a reply soon after. Both Kendell's opposition to the motion As it pertains to the analysis here, the relevant facts in 1 the AC were identical to those in the initial Complaint. Nearly all the factual allegations that Kendell added in the AC relate to whether a valid agreement existed between Kendell and CSB, but the district court did not reach this element of tortious interference, nor do we. - 2 - to dismiss and Mark Foods' reply to the opposition cited to and treated the AC as the operative complaint. Relying on the claims and allegations in the AC, the district court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding that Kendell's tortious interference claim lacked facial plausibility because three of the claim's elements were not supported by adequate factual allegations. Kendell timely appealed. II. Before us, Kendell first argues that the district court erred when it applied Mark Foods' pending motion to dismiss to Kendell's subsequently filed AC. Kendell contends that its filing of the AC superseded the initial Complaint and therefore mooted the motion to dismiss. Mark Foods responds that the district court did not err when it applied the motion to dismiss to the AC rather than requiring Mark Foods to file a new motion to dismiss. We find that the district court did not err when it applied the motion to dismiss to the AC. The AC did not moot the already pending motion to dismiss because the AC did not add allegations that altered the relevant arguments made in the motion to dismiss. To have required Mark Foods to file a subsequent, - 3 - materially identical motion to dismiss would ha