“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-927-FDW-DCK
BRENT ROBERTS and )
REGINALD E. BLOOM, JR., )
)
Plaintiffs, ) ORDER
)
v. )
)
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH )
CAROLINA, CHAD BROWN, and )
STEPHEN ZILL, )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To
Amend Complaint...” (Document No. 26) filed January 8, 2025. 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 motions 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; moreover,
Defendants have declined to file a response to the motion to amend and the time to do so has
lapsed. See LCvR 7.1(e). The undersigned will, therefore, allow Plaintiffs to file an Amended
Complaint which supersedes the original Complaint. The undersigned will also direct that
“Defendant Chad Brown’s Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 15) and “Defendants Gaston
County, North Carolina And Stephen Zill’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims Under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981 and 1983” (Document No. 22) 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 renewed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To Amend
Complaint...” (Document No. 26) is GRANTED. !
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendant Chad Brown’s Motion To Dismiss”
(Document No. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendants Gaston County, North Carolina And
Stephen Zill’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims Under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983”
(Document No. 22) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 30, 2025
David C. Keesler “y
United States Magistrate Judge et
! 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.”