# Thomas v. InterMark Management Corporation

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · October 31, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10654279

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 31, 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/10654279

## Opinion text

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“Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the original complaint is superseded, and motions to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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10654279. Public record. Not legal advice.