Crown Equipment Corporation v. Brady

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATESVILLE DIVISION

CASE NO. 5:23-CV-059-KDB-DCK

CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

)

v. )

)

DAVID BRADY, et al., )

)

Defendant, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES ANDREWS and JERRY TROSTLE, )

)

Third-Party Defendants. )

)

)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the “Motion To Dismiss Defendants

Brady, William Tucker, Brawtus Holding Company, LLC, And Brawtus Management Company,

LLC’s Crossclaims Against Pneu-Mech Systems Manufacturing, Inc.” (Document No. 66) filed

May 8, 2024. 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 direct that the pending motion 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

David Brady, William Tucker, Brawtus Holding Company, LLC, and Brawtus

Management Company, LLC (together, “Cross-claimants”) filed a “First Amended Crossclaim”

(Document No. 77 on May 22, 2024. Cross-claimants’ “First Amended Crossclaim” (Document

No. 77) supersedes their original “Crossclaim” (Document No. 57). As such, the undersigned will

direct that “Motion To Dismiss Defendants[’] ... Crossclaims Against Pneu-Mech Systems

Manufacturing, Inc.”(Document No. 66) 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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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 Pneu-Mech Systems Manufacturing, Inc. contends the “First Amended

Crossclaim” (Document No. 77) is deficient, this Order is without prejudice to filing a renewed

motion to dismiss the Amended Crossclaim.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the “Motion To Dismiss Defendants Brady,

William Tucker, Brawtus Holding Company, LLC, And Brawtus Management Company, LLC’s

Crossclaims Against Pneu-Mech Systems Manufacturing, Inc.” (Document No. 66) is DENIED

AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 23, 2024

DiC pe

David C. Keesler “ey

United States Magistrate Judge get