# Smith v. Town of Cramerton

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · September 26, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10255146

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 26, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10255146

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-631-DCK
RANDALL SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
TOWN OF CRAMERTON, )
)
Defendant. )
)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss”
(Document No. 13) filed January 25, 2019. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and this motion is ripe for disposition. Having
carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will direct
that the pending motion to dismiss be denied.
Plaintiff Randall Smith timely filed an “Amended Complaint” (Document No. 22) on
September 23, 2019, pursuant to the undersigned’s Order in the “Memorandum And
Recommendation” (Document No. 19) issued on September 5, 2019, allowing an Amended
Complaint. Also on September 23, 2019, the parties filed a “Joint Stipulation of Consent to
Exercise Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge” (Document No. 21). This matter was
reassigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge on September 24, 2019.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds good cause to allow the “Amended
Complaint” (Document No. 22), which supersedes the original “Complaint” (Document No. 1).
Furthermore, based on the filing of the “Amended Complaint,” as well as the undersigned’s careful
consideration of the pending motion to dismiss, the undersigned will direct that “Defendants’
Motions To Dismiss” (Document No. 13) be denied as moot. See (Document No. 19).
It is well settled that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and
that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount
Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule ... is that an amended pleading
supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.”); see also, Fawzy
v. Wauquiez Boats SNC, 873 F.3d 451, 455 (4th Cir. 2017) (“Because a properly filed amended
complaint supersedes the original one and becomes the operative complaint in the case, it renders
the original complaint ‘of no effect.’”); Colin v. Marconi Commerce Systems Employees’
Retirement Plan, 335 F.Supp.2d 590, 614 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (“Earlier motions made by Defendants
were filed prior to and have been rendered moot by Plaintiffs’ filing of the Second Amended
Complaint”); Brown v. Sikora and Associates, Inc., 311 Fed.Appx. 568, 572 (4th Cir. Apr. 16,
2008); and Atlantic Skanska, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 3:07-CV-266-FDW, 2007 WL 3224985 at
*4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2007).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss” (Document
No. 13) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: September 25, 2019

ont ——
David C. Keesler es
United States Magistrate Judge wae

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10255146. Public record. Not legal advice.