Frost v. Hilliard Law

W.D. North Carolina

Frost v. Hilliard Law

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 23, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-00149

StatusUnknown

This text of Frost v. Hilliard Law (Frost v. Hilliard Law) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frost v. Hilliard Law, (W.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:24-cv-149-MOC-WCM KRISTINA RENE FROST, ) Individually and as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of ) Shawna Rene Frost and Tristan Allen ) Mays, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) ORDER ) HILLIARD LAW, et al., ) ) ) Defendant. ) a) THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed by Defendants Leslie Marie Bearden, Attilio Vincenzo Colella, Rudy F. Gonzales, Jr, Robert Carl Hilliard, Hilliard Law, Hilliard Martinez Gonzales, LLP, John Brandon Martinez, Matthew Lyle McMullen, Moss & Colella, PC, Marion Magdalene Reilly, and Ana Luisa Zabalgoitia. (Doc. No. 36). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 38). Because Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint, the pending motion to dismiss the Original Complaint is moot. See 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.”); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motions to dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 36), is DENIED as moot. Signed: September 23, 2024

Nee REANIM Lee Max O. Cogburn Ji & United States District Judge Wo gate

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:24-cv-149-MOC-WCM KRISTINA RENE FROST, ) Individually and as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of ) Shawna Rene Frost and Tristan Allen ) Mays, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) ORDER ) HILLIARD LAW, et al., ) ) ) Defendant. ) a) THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed by Defendants Leslie Marie Bearden, Attilio Vincenzo Colella, Rudy F. Gonzales, Jr, Robert Carl Hilliard, Hilliard Law, Hilliard Martinez Gonzales, LLP, John Brandon Martinez, Matthew Lyle McMullen, Moss & Colella, PC, Marion Magdalene Reilly, and Ana Luisa Zabalgoitia. (Doc. No. 36). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 38). Because Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint, the pending motion to dismiss the Original Complaint is moot. See 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.”); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motions to dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 36), is DENIED as moot. Signed: September 23, 2024

Nee REANIM Lee Max O. Cogburn Ji & United States District Judge Wo gate

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frost v. Hilliard Law, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frost-v-hilliard-law-ncwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack