# Leonard Automatics, Inc. v. Houser

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653936

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 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/10653936

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-287-FDW-DCK
LEONARD AUTOMATICS, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
WILLIAM C. HOUSER, )
)
)
Defendant. )
)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant’s “Motion For Leave To
Amend Answer And Counterclaims” (Document No. 19) filed July 22, 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 Defendant to file an Amended Answer and Counterclaims which
supersedes the original Answer and Counterclaims. Furthermore, the undersigned will direct that
“Plaintiff Leonard Automatics, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims, Or, In The
Alternative, For A more Definite Statement” (Document No. 13) 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 Plaintiff contends the Amended Answer and Counterclaims is deficient, this
Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Answer
and Counterclaims.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion For Leave To Amend
Answer And Counterclaims” (Document No. 19) is GRANTED. !
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Plaintiff Leonard Automatics, Inc.’s Motion To
Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims, Or, In The Alternative, For A more Definite Statement”
(Document No. 13) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED. Signed: July 23, 2024

DiC pe
David C. Keesler “ey
United States Magistrate Judge get

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
Court grants the motion, the filer will be responsible for electronically filing the document on the case

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653936. Public record. Not legal advice.