“Earlier motions made by Defendants were filed prior to and have been rendered moot by Plaintiffs’ filing of the Second Amended Complaint”
How later courts described this case
- “Earlier motions made by Defendants were filed prior to and have been rendered moot by Plaintiffs’ filing of the Second Amended Complaint”
- “The general rule ... is that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.”
- “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.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-015-KDB-DCK
MISTY MARTIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant Lowe’s Companies, Inc.’s
Partial Motion To Dismiss Under Rule 12(B)(6)” (Document No. 22) filed April 28, 2020. 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, the record, and
applicable authority, the undersigned will direct that the pending motion to dismiss be denied 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).
The undersigned notes that “Plaintiff's First Amended Collective And Class Action
Company And Jury Demand” (Document No. 26) was filed on May 12, 2020. 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at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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, the undersigned finds that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is now
moot. To the extent Defendant contends the Amended Complaint is deficient, this Order is without
prejudice to Defendant filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, as appropriate.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant Lowe’s Companies, Inc.’s Partial
Motion To Dismiss Under Rule 12(B)(6)” (Document No. 22) be DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 13, 2020
DCm
David C. Keesler ey
United States Magistrate Judge af