Opinion

Thomas v. InterMark Management Corporation

Court
District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Filed
Oct 31, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.6%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

CASE NO. 3:24-CV-00754-FDW-SCR

SHARON THOMAS, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

INTERMARK MANAGEMENT )

CORPORATION, ANDREA MAYS, )

COLLETTE MATTOX, MARK )

STUCKEY, GREENWAY RESIDENTIAL )

DEVELOPMENT, BRADLEY E. )

PARKER, CHARLOTTE )

MECKLENBURG COMMUNITY )

RELATIONS COMMITTEE, WILLIE )

RATCHFORD, GWENARDA MILLER, )

LUIS MATTA, KIMBERLY COLE, )

)

Defendants. )

)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Intermark Management Corporation,

Andrea Mays, Collette Mattox, and Mark Stuckey’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 10), Plaintiff’s

Motion for Extension of Time to submit Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 12), Plaintiff’s Motion

for Extension of Time to Make Corrections and Submit Complaint, (Doc. No. 14), and Plaintiff’s

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, (Doc. No. 16).

“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . 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) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added).

“Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the original complaint is superseded, and motions to

dismiss the original complaint are rendered moot.” MB Realty Grp., Inc. v. Gaston Cty. Bd. of

Educ., No. 3:17-cv-00427-FDW-DCK, 2018 WL 3381427, at *2 (W.D.N.C. July 11, 2018); see

also Brown v. Sikora and Associates, Inc., 311 F. App’x 568, 572 (4th Cir. 2008).

“In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written

consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (emphasis added). “[L]eave to amend a

pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party,

there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.”

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original) (citing

Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)). Importantly though, “Rule 15

is not designed to allow a plaintiff to repeatedly amend his or her pleadings in the face of motions

to dismiss and/or Court Orders dismissing claims until the plaintiff can ‘get it right.’” Performance

Sales & Mktg., LLC v. Lowe’s Cos., Inc., No. 5:07cv140, 2011 WL 13227840, at *2 (W.D.N.C.

May 27, 2011).

On October 16, 2024, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 10). Within twenty-one days, on October 25, 2024, Plaintiff

properly filed her first amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 13), rendering Defendants’ Motion, (Doc.

No. 10), moot. Since Plaintiff timely amended her Complaint once as a matter of course, her

Motion for Extension of Time to Amend, (Doc. No. 12), is also moot. Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion

for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, (Doc. No. 16), is also moot.

Plaintiff attempted to file a second amended Complaint on October 28, 2024. (Doc. Nos.

14–15.) Plaintiff does not represent she has Defendants’ consent and she did not seek leave of the

Court before docketing her proposed second amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion

for Extension of Time to Make Corrections and Submit Complaint, (Doc. No. 14), is denied

without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s proposed second amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 15), is stricken

from the docket. Plaintiff may seek to further amend her Complaint, in compliance with the

requirements of Rule 15.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 10), is DENIED as MOOT.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Amend, (Doc. No. 12), is DENIED as MOOT.

3. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Make Corrections and Submit Complaint,

(Doc. No. 14), is DENIED without prejudice.

4. Plaintiff's proposed second amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 15), is STRICKEN from the

docket.

5. Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, (Doc. No. 16), is

DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: October 29, 2024

Frank D. Whitney ;

United States District Judge □□□

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.