Industrial Timber, LLC v. Jackson Furniture Industries, Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
• Decided: September 8, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00229
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:22-CV-229-KDB-DCK INDUSTRIAL TIMBER, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) JACKSON FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim” (Document No. 8) filed August 15, 2022. 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 and the record, the undersigned will deny the motion as moot. Plaintiff filed a “Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss The Counterclaim” (Document No. 13) on September 6, 2022. Plaintiff contends in the notice that its motion to dismiss (Document No. 8) was rendered moot by the filing of “Defendant’s Amended Counterclaim” (Document No. 10) on August 29, 2022. See (Document No. 13, p. 1). Defendant’s counsel agrees with Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was rendered moot by the filing of the amended counterclaim. Id. It is well settled that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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 F. App’x 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 Plaintiff contends the Amended Counterclaim is deficient, this Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Counterclaim, as appropriate. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim” (Document No. 8) is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED. Signed: September 7, 2022 DCm David C. Keesler ey United States Magistrate Judge af