# Crown Equipment Corporation v. Brady

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 23, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10261193

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 23, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10261193

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10261193. Public record. Not legal advice.