“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”
- “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.’”
- “The general rule ... is that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading 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
CASE NO. 3:24-CV-455-KDB-DCK
TOLULOPE AYOOLA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER
)
v. )
)
UNION COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF )
SOCIAL SERVICES, UNION COUNTY )
DIVISION OF HUMAN SERVICES, and )
UNION COUNTY, )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants’ Motion For Judgment On
The Pleadings” (Document No. 9) filed August 16, 2024, and “Defendants’ Motion To Stay Initial
Attorney Conference” (Document No. 10) filed August 23, 2024. These motions have been
referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate
review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motions, the record, and applicable
authority, the undersigned will direct that the pending motions be denied as moot.
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).
Plaintiff filed an “Amended Complaint” (Document No. 11) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15
on August 30, 2024, in response to “Defendants’ Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings”
(Document No. 9). As such, the undersigned will direct that the pending motions 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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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 Amended Complaint is deficient, this Order is
without prejudice to Defendants filing a renewed dispositive motion and motion to stay the Initial
Attorney’s Conference.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that that “Defendants’ Motion For Judgment On The
Pleadings” (Document No. 9) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendants’ Motion To Stay Initial Attorney
Conference” (Document No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED. Signed: September 3, 2024
DiC pe
David C. Keesler “ey
United States Magistrate Judge get