“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
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-191-RJC-DCK
ANDREW JACKSON ROLLINSON, )
VANESSA FRI-CIA ROLLINSON, and )
ANDREW O’DARIUS ROLLINSON, )
) ORDER
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
TOP TIER SOLAR SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendants’ “Motion To Dismiss”
(Document No. 8) and “Defendant Austin Taylor’s Motion to Dismiss” (Document No. 9) filed
May 5, 2023. These motions 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 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
In this case, Plaintiffs timely filed an “Amended Complaint” (Document No. 12) which
supersedes the original Complaint on May 22, 2023.
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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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 renewed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint, as
appropriate.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants’ “Motion To Dismiss” (Document
No. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendant Austin Taylor’s Motion to Dismiss”
(Document No. 9) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 22, 2023
David C. Keesler Tw
United States Magistrate Judge et