CS Technology, Inc. v. Horizon River Technologies, LLC

W.D. North Carolina

CS Technology, Inc. v. Horizon River Technologies, LLC

District Court, W.D. North Carolina·Decided May 30, 2019·No. 3:18-cv-00273·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-00273-RJC-DSC

CS TECHNOLOGY INC. AND ) SITEHANDS INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) HORIZON RIVER TECHNOLOGIES, ) LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “[Defendant-]Counterclaim Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Counterclaim” (document # 61) and the parties’ briefs and exhibits. “Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” (document #56) is pending before the presiding District Judge. The Fourth Circuit has held that leave to amend a pleading should be granted unless (1) “the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party,” (2) “the moving party has acted in bad faith,” or (3) “the amendment would be futile.” Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants oppose the Motion contending that Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s RICO claim is futile. For the reasons stated in Counterclaim Plaintiff’s briefs, its “Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Counterclaim” (document # 61) is GRANTED. Counterclaim Plaintiff shall file its Amended and Supplemental Counterclaim within five days of this Order. It is well settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F. 3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motion to dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint). IT IS THEREFORE FURTHER ORDERED that “Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” (document #56) is administratively DENIED as moot without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties, including but not limited to moving counsel, and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr. SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 30, 2019

fr4c ey David S. Cayer : United States Magistrate Judge ae

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-00273-RJC-DSC

CS TECHNOLOGY INC. AND ) SITEHANDS INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) HORIZON RIVER TECHNOLOGIES, ) LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “[Defendant-]Counterclaim Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Counterclaim” (document # 61) and the parties’ briefs and exhibits. “Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” (document #56) is pending before the presiding District Judge. The Fourth Circuit has held that leave to amend a pleading should be granted unless (1) “the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party,” (2) “the moving party has acted in bad faith,” or (3) “the amendment would be futile.” Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants oppose the Motion contending that Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s RICO claim is futile. For the reasons stated in Counterclaim Plaintiff’s briefs, its “Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Counterclaim” (document # 61) is GRANTED. Counterclaim Plaintiff shall file its Amended and Supplemental Counterclaim within five days of this Order. It is well settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F. 3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motion to dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint). IT IS THEREFORE FURTHER ORDERED that “Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” (document #56) is administratively DENIED as moot without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties, including but not limited to moving counsel, and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr. SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 30, 2019

fr4c ey David S. Cayer : United States Magistrate Judge ae

CS Technology, Inc. v. Horizon River Technologies, LLC, (W.D.N.C. 2019).

Pincite

CS Technology, Inc. v. Horizon River Technologies, LLC (CS Technology, Inc. v. Horizon River Technologies, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related