“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-357-RJC-DCK
STACI ANNE BRAUN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
DAVID FREDERICK BRAUN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se Plaintiff’s “Motion To Amend
Complaint” (Document No. 23) filed January 13, 2023. 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 grant
the motion to amend and direct that the pending motions to dismiss and quash be denied as moot.
Pro se Plaintiff Stacie Anne Braun (“Plaintiff” or “Braun”) initiated this action with the
filing of a “Complaint” (Document No. 1) on August 4, 2022. Defendants have since filed motions
to dismiss and a motion to quash. See (Document Nos. 7, 9, 12).
Following some delay, Plaintiff filed a “Motion For Extension to File An Amended
Complaint” (Document No. 20) on December 14, 2022. The Court granted Plaintiff’s “Motion
For Extension…” on December 15, 2022, and directed Plaintiff to either file responses to the
pending motions, or, in the alternative, to “file an Amended Complaint on or before January 13,
2023.” (Document No. 21). Instead of filing an Amended Complaint on January 13, 2023,
Plaintiff filed the instant “Motion To Amend Complaint” (Document No. 23). As noted above,
the Court has already granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint. (Document No. 21).
Based on the foregoing, the Court will once again grant pro se Plaintiff’s request to file an
Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint will supersede Plaintiff’s original “Complaint”
(Document No. 1). In addition, the undersigned will direct that “Defendant Reeves Law Firm,
PLLC’s Motion To Dismiss ” (Document No. 7); “Defendant David Frederick Braun’s Motion
To Quash Service Of Process” (Document No. 9); and the “State Of North Carolina’s Motion To
Dismiss” (Document No. 12) 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).
Pro se Plaintiff is respectfully advised that further amendment of the Complaint is unlikely
to be allowed. Defendants’ motions are dismissed without prejudice to filing similar motions
regarding Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, if necessary and appropriate.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that pro se Plaintiff's “Motion To Amend Complaint”
(Document No. 23) is GRANTED.! Pro se Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint on or before
January 24, 2023.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Reeves Law Firm, PLLC’s Motion To
Dismiss ” (Document No. 7); “Defendant David Frederick Braun’s Motion To Quash Service Of
Process” (Document No. 9); and the “State Of North Carolina’s Motion To Dismiss” (Document
No. 12) are DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk Of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff by certified
U.S. mail, return receipt requested.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 17, 2023
DCm
David C. Keesler Vw
United States Magistrate Judge et
! The “Administrative Procedures Governing Filing and Service by Electronic Means,” revised January 1,
2018, at Part II, Section A, Paragraph 8, provide that: “If filing a document requires leave of the Court,
such as an amended complaint, the attorney shall attach the proposed document as an exhibit to the motion
according to the procedures in IV. If the Court grants the motion, the filer will be responsible for
electronically filing the document on the case docket.” (Emphasis added).