# McConnell v. Schaefer Systems International, Inc.

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · June 9, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10257110

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 9, 2021
- **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/10257110

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:20-CV-727-RJC-DCK
SHAQUIDA MCCONNELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
SCHAEFER SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, )
INC., and ELITE RESOURCES, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant Elite Resources, Inc.’s
Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 14) filed April 30, 2021. 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 direct
that the pending motion to dismiss be denied as moot.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has timely filed an “Amended Complaint” (Document No. 17) pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B). The Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint. As such,
the undersigned will direct that “Defendant Elite Resources, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss”
(Document No. 14) be denied as moot.
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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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 F. App’x 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 “Defendant Elite Resources, Inc.’s Motion To
Dismiss” (Document No. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 9, 2021
DCm
David C. Keesler ey
United States Magistrate Judge af

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10257110. Public record. Not legal advice.