“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. 3:22-CV-229-KDB-DCK
INDUSTRIAL TIMBER, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
JACKSON FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, )
INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss
Defendant’s Counterclaim” (Document No. 8) filed August 15, 2022. 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.
Plaintiff filed a “Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss The Counterclaim”
(Document No. 13) on September 6, 2022. Plaintiff contends in the notice that its motion to
dismiss (Document No. 8) was rendered moot by the filing of “Defendant’s Amended
Counterclaim” (Document No. 10) on August 29, 2022. See (Document No. 13, p. 1). Defendant’s
counsel agrees with Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was rendered moot by the filing of
the amended counterclaim. Id.
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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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 Plaintiff contends the Amended Counterclaim is deficient, this Order is
without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Counterclaim, as
appropriate.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss Defendant’s
Counterclaim” (Document No. 8) is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 7, 2022
DCm
David C. Keesler ey
United States Magistrate Judge af