“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
CASE NO. 3:24-CV-779-KDB-DCK
MOUNTAIN ISLAND DAY COMMUNITY )
CHARTER SCHOOL and MARINER )
FOUNDATION, )
)
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, ) ORDER
)
v. )
)
INSPIRE PERFORMING ARTS COMPANY, )
LLC, LISA LEWIS, and MEGAN )
ELIZABETH ZUGELDER MAY, )
)
)
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, )
Third-Party Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
Jackson Day School Board Of Directors, )
Mariner Foundation Board of directors, and )
Tammy Winstead, )
)
Third-Party Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiffs’ And Third-Party
Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Counterclaims And Third-Party Claims For Lack Of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction” (Document No. 54), “Plaintiffs’ And Third-Party Defendants’ Motion To
Dismiss Counterclaims And Third-Party Claims For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief
Can Be Granted” (Document No. 56), and “Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ And Third-Party Plaintiffs’
Motion To Amend” (Document No. 60). 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 motion and the record, the undersigned will grant the motion to amend
and deny the motions to dismiss 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
In the interests of judicial economy and efficient case management, the undersigned will
address the pending motions without further delay. However, counsel are respectfully reminded
that
Civil motions must show that counsel have conferred and attempted
in good faith to resolve areas of disagreement, or describe the
timely attempts of the movant to confer with opposing counsel.
A motion that fails to show that the parties have properly conferred
or attempted to confer may be summarily denied.
LCvR 7.1(b) (emphasis added).
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 Counterclaim/Third-Party Plaintiffs to file Amended Counterclaims and
Third-Party Complaint which supersedes their original Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint
(Document No. 49). Furthermore, the undersigned will direct that “Plaintiffs’ And Third-Party
Defendants’ Motion[s] To Dismiss...” (Document Nos. 54 and 56) 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 Counterclaim/Third-Party Defendants contend the Amended
Counterclaims/Third-Party Complaint is deficient, this Order is without prejudice to
Counterclaim/Third-Party Defendants filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended
Counterclaims/Third-Party Complaint. However, if a renewed dismissal motion is appropriate,
Counterclaim/Third-Party Defendants are respectfully directed to file a single motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ And Third-Party
Plaintiffs’ Motion To Amend” (Document No. 60) is GRANTED. !
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Plaintiffs’ And Third-Party Defendants’ Motion To
Dismiss Counterclaims And Third-Party Claims For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction”
(Document No. 54) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Plaintiffs’ And Third-Party Defendants’ Motion To
Dismiss Counterclaims And Third-Party Claims For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief
Can Be Granted” (Document No. 56) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 29, 2025
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 I], 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 IV. If the Court grants the motion, the filer will be responsible for
electronically filing the document on the case docket.”