# Dean v. Campbell

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · January 3, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10259243

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** January 3, 2023
- **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/10259243

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:22-CV-167-KDB-DCK
DAVID DEAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
DARREN CAMPBELL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss
Pursuant To Rule 12(b)(6)” (Document No. 7) filed December 12, 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.
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).
Under Rule 15, a “motion to amend should be denied only where it would be prejudicial,
there has been bad faith, or the amendment would be futile.” Nourison Rug Corporation v.
Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276-77
(4th Cir. 2001)); see also, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, “the grant or
denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court.” Pittston Co. v.

U.S., 199 F.3d 694, 705 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
DISCUSSION
The undersigned notes that Plaintiff filed an “Amended Complaint” (Document No. 12)
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 and consistent with this Court’s previous “Order” (Document No. 10)
allowing Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to “Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss…”
(Document No. 7).
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).
To the extent Defendants contend the Amended Complaint is deficient, this Order is
without prejudice to Defendants filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, as
appropriate.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To
Rule 12(b)(6)” (Document No. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 3, 2023
be
David C. Keesler tg
United States Magistrate Judge ee

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10259243. Public record. Not legal advice.