“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
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-319-MOC-DCK
WES JOHNSON, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
CAROLINA MOTOR CLUB, INC., d/b/a )
AAA CAROLINAS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants’ Motion For Partial
Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint” (Document No. 19) filed November 2, 2021.
Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, and in consultation
with Judge Cogburn’s chambers, 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
On November 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their second “Amended Class Action Complaint”
(Document No. 23) (“Second Amended Complaint”). For the reasons stated below, the
undersigned will direct that “Defendants’ Motion For Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint” (Document No. 19) 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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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).
To the extent Defendant contends the Second Amended Complaint is deficient, this Order
is without prejudice to Defendant filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint, if necessary, after the stay of this matter is lifted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendants’ Motion For Partial Dismissal of
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint” (Document No. 19) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 1, 2021
David C. Keesler wed,
United States Magistrate Judge et