Brantley County Development Partners, LLC v. Brantley County, Georgia

Opinion

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Waycross Division

BRANTLEY COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC,

Plaintiff, No. 5:19—CV-109

v.

BRANTLEY COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Brantley County Development Partners, LLC initiated this action on November 26, 2019, after voluntarily dismissing a similar action it had filed in Brantley County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1; id. ¶ 100. Defendants Brantley County, Georgia and Brantley County Board of Commissioners timely filed motions to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 21, 22. In turn, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike exhibits to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, dkt. no. 24, and Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to respond thereto, dkt. no. 31. Plaintiff has since amended its complaint with the Court’s leave. See Dkt. Nos. 44, 45. The Court will now address the pending motions. LEGAL STANDARD Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after the time for amending a pleading as a matter of course has

passed, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” An amended pleading “supersedes the former pleading” such that “the original pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the pleader's averments against his adversary.” Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted) (“Under the Federal Rules, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.”). DISCUSSION Plaintiff obtained the Court’s consent to amend its

complaint. Dkt. No. 44. As such, Plaintiff’s amended complaint, dkt. no. 45, supersedes the original complaint, dkt. no. 1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss, dkt. nos. 21, 22, as well as Plaintiff’s motion to strike, dkt. no. 24, and Defendants’ motion for extension of time, dkt. no. 31, have thus been rendered moot by Plaintiff’s filing of the amended complaint. See S. Pilot Ins. Co. v. CECS, Inc., 15 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1287 (N.D. Ga.), order clarified on other grounds, 15 F. Supp. 3d 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (citing Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006); Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982)). Should Defendants wish to renew their motions to dismiss with

regard to the amended complaint, they are granted leave to do so within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CONCLUSION Defendants’ motions to dismiss, dkt. nos. 21, 22, and motion for extension of time, dkt. no. 31, as well as Plaintiff’s motion to strike, dkt. no. 24, are DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED, this 8th day of July, 2020.

___ HON. LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA