# Scott-Williams v. Jones

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · November 13, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10255181

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 13, 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/10255181

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-383-RJC-DCK
KARESS N. SCOTT-WILLIAMS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
BDP INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss
Complaint Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)” (Document No. 12) filed October 29, 2019. This
motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and
immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the
undersigned will deny the motion as moot.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applies to the amendment of pleadings and allows a
party to amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving, or “if the pleading is one
to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21
days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1). Rule 15 further provides:
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the
court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
Plaintiff timely filed an “Amended Complaint” (Document No. 14) on November 12, 2019,
within 21 days of “Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Complaint Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).”
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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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).
Based on the foregoing, it appears that the pending motion to dismiss is now moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Complaint
Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)” (Document No. 12) is DENIED AS MOOT. This Order is
without prejudice to Defendant filing a renewed motion to dismiss the “Amended Complaint,” if
appropriate.
SO ORDERED. Signed: November 13, 2019
DCm
David C. Keesler ey
United States Magistrate Judge af

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10255181. Public record. Not legal advice.