“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-203-KDB-DCK
JOHN ESTERHAY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
TEN OAKS MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff John Esterhay’s Cross-Motion
For Leave to Amend His First Amended Complaint” (Document No. 20) filed August 18, 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, the record, and applicable authority, the
undersigned will grant the motion to amend, and direct that the pending motion to dismiss be
denied as moot. Further amendments are unlikely to be allowed.
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 is not persuaded there is sufficient evidence of prejudice, bad faith, or
futility to outweigh the interests of justice that favor granting leave to amend; therefore, the
undersigned will allow Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint which supersedes the First
Amended Complaint. Furthermore, the undersigned will direct that “Defendants’ Motion To
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint” (Document No. 17) 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 Second Amended Complaint is deficient, this Order
is without prejudice to Defendants filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff John Esterhay’s Cross-Motion For
Leave to Amend His First Amended Complaint” (Document No. 20) is GRANTED.! Plaintiff
shall file a Second Amended Complaint on or before August 29, 2023.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint” (Document No. 17) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 25, 2023
DCm
David C. Keesler ey
United States Magistrate Judge af
! 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.”