“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. 3:23-CV-049-RJC-DCK
DONOVAN PEOPLES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
SOUTH CHARLOTTE CHEVROLET, GM )
FINANCIAL, EXPERIAN, SMITH )
DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & )
MYERS LLP, and PREMIER TOW & )
RECOVERY, )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the pending motions (Document Nos.
13, 18, 21, and 25). This matter 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
motions, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will direct that the pending motions
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
Pro se Plaintiff filed an “Amended Claim For Relief” (Document No. 28) on April 3, 2023,
which the Court construes as Plaintiff’s “Amended Complaint.” The Amended Complaint was
filed within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of “Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s Motion
To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Document No. 18) and the “Motion To Dismiss Of Defendant
General Motors Financial Company, Inc.” (Document No. 25). Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), and in
the interests of judicial economy and efficient case management, the undersigned finds that the
amended pleading was timely filed and that the pending motions 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).
To the extent Defendants contend the Amended Complaint is deficient, this Order is
without prejudice to Defendants filing motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint, as appropriate.
Pro se Plaintiff is respectfully advised that further amendments will not be allowed without leave
of the Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s Motion
To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint” (Document No. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Motion To Dismiss Of Defendant General Motors
Financial Company, Inc.” (Document No. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's “Motion For Default Judgment” (Document
No. 13) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's “Motion For Amended Application”
(Document No. 21) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 6, 2023
DCm
David C. Keesler ey
United States Magistrate Judge af