“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
CASE NO. 3:21-CV-415-RJC-DCK
JAMES EDWARD DUNCAN III, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG )
POLICE DEPARTMENT, ERICK )
KELLY, and ANDREW ISAACS, )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant City Of Charlotte’s Motion
To Dismiss” (Document No. 5); “Defendants Isaacs And Kelly’s Motion To Dismiss” (Document
No. 8); pro se Plaintiff’s “Motion For Entry Of Default” (Document No. 10). The motions to
dismiss have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motions, the record, and
applicable authority, the undersigned will direct that the pending motions to dismiss and for entry
of default 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).
Pro se Plaintiff timely field an “Amended Complaint” (Document No. 14) on November
12, 2021. Defendants then filed a “…Joint Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 17) on November
26, 2021. The undersigned finds that the Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint.
As such, the original motions to dismiss and the motion for entry of default should 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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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 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 “Defendant City Of Charlotte’s Motion To
Dismiss” (Document No. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendants Isaacs And Kelly’s Motion To Dismiss”
(Document No. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs “Motion For Entry Of Default” (Document
No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT
SO ORDERED. Signed: November 30, 2021
David C. Keesler es
United States Magistrate Judge wae