“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. 3:24-CV-325-KDB-DCK
JUAN WHIPPLE, d/b/a Queen City Tours, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
KEVIN MARCUS, d/b/a Queen City Rides 1, )
LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion To Amend[]
Complaint For Trademark Infringement” (Document No. 14) filed June 13, 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 grant the motion to amend, and 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).
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 an Amended Complaint which supersedes the original
Complaint. Furthermore, the undersigned will direct that “Defendants Lance Zaal And US Ghost
Adventures, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) For Lack Of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction” (Document No. 11) 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 F. App’x 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 a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiffs “Motion To Amend[] Complaint For
Trademark Infringement” (Document No. 14) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendants Lance Zaal And US Ghost Adventures,
LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction”
(Document No. 11) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall file Plaintiffs “Amended
Complaint For Trademark Infringement” (Document No. 14-1) as a separately filed docket entry.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 14, 2024
David C. Keesler vy
United States Magistrate Judge et