Hesed El v. Bryson

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 23, 2022
Docket1:21-cv-00305
StatusUnknown

This text of Hesed El v. Bryson (Hesed El v. Bryson) 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
Hesed El v. Bryson, (W.D.N.C. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:21-cv-00305-MR-WCM

BRO T. HESED-EL ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER v. ) ) ROBIN BRYSON ) ) , ) JOHN DOE ) ) , ) MISSION HOSPITAL, INC., ) ANC HEALTHCARE, INC. ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ )

This matter is before the undersigned on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion to Dismiss,” Doc. 10) and Plaintiff’s Request for Permission to File Electronically (the “Motion to E-File,” Doc. 15). I. The Motion to Dismiss Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on January 27, 2022. Doc. 10. Defendants served the Motion to Dismiss on Plaintiff by mail. Doc. 10 at 3. On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff, who is proceeding , filed an Amended Complaint. Doc. 14. “The general rule ... is that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.” Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001); 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’”). “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within … 21

days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)….” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(1)(B). Considering the method of service of the Motion to Dismiss, as well as weekends and holidays, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed timely pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C); 6(d); 6(a)(1)(C).

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is now moot. See 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”); Ledford v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, No. 1:20-CV-005- MR-DCK, 2020 WL 1042235 at 1 (W.D.N.C. March 3, 2020) (“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”).1

1 Also pending is Defendants’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice (Doc. 12). Plaintiff’s deadline for responding to that motion is March 4, 2022. II. The Motion to E-File In his Motion to E-File, Plaintiff explains that from February of 2022

“through the remainder of the year” he will be traveling overseas and that considering the cost and delivery time associated with mailing documents from Europe, Africa, and Asia, he would like permission to file electronically. Plaintiff additionally states that he has already been serving Defendants by

email, has an existing PACER account in good standing, and “has no history of abusing his active e-filing privileges” in certain appellate courts. Doc. 15 at 1- 2. This Court’s Administrative Procedures Governing Filing and Service by

Electronic Means (“Administrative Procedures”) provide that “parties proceeding may request in writing - solely for the purpose of the action - to receive notice via e-mail whenever a pleading or other paper is filed electronically in accordance with these procedures.” Administrative

Procedures, revised January 1, 2018, available on the Court’s website. However, “[p]arties proceeding shall not file electronically.” Id. Accordingly, while Plaintiff may request to receive electronic notification of filings in this matter, consistent with the Court’s Administrative

Procedures, the Motion to E-File will be denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. This denial is without prejudice to the filing of any motions challenging the Amended Complaint, if appropriate. 2. Plaintiff's Request for Permission to File Electronically (Doc. 15) is DENIED.

Signed: February 23, 2022 od □

W. Carleton Metcalf United States Magistrate Judge alll J

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

Related

Amr Fawzy v. Wauquiez Boats SNC
873 F.3d 451 (Fourth Circuit, 2017)
Young v. City of Mount Ranier
238 F.3d 567 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Colin v. Marconi Commerce Systems Employees' Retirement Plan
335 F. Supp. 2d 590 (M.D. North Carolina, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hesed El v. Bryson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hesed-el-v-bryson-ncwd-2022.