Johnson v. Honeywell International Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina·Decided November 27, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-00640·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-00640-RJC-SCR

SYLVESTER JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) v. ) ORDER ) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, ) INC., et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion[s] to Dismiss” (Doc. Nos. 5 & 7) filed November 13, 2023, and “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint” (Doc. No. 12) on November 22, 2023. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments to pleadings. Rule 15(a)(1) grants a party the right to “amend its pleading once as a matter of course,” if done within 21 days after serving the pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,” a party may amend once as a matter of course, provided that it does so within “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). The Rule further provides that leave to amend shall be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to Amend within 21 days following receipt of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Answer. Accordingly, the amendment is as a matter of course. It is well-settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. Hall v. Int’| Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., No. 3:10-CV-418-RJC-DSC, 2011 WL 4014315, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2011); Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2001). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. “Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint” (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint within ten days of this Order. 2. Defendants’ “Motion[s] to Dismiss” (Doc. Nos. 5 & 7) are administratively DENIED as moot without prejudice. 3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr. SO ORDERED. Signed: November 27, 2023

Susan C. Rodriguez United States Magistrate Judge * MEP

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

Johnson v. Honeywell International Inc., (W.D.N.C. 2023).

Johnson v. Honeywell International Inc. (Johnson v. Honeywell International Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Young v. City of Mount Ranier
238 F.3d 567 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)