Lombrana v. Bank of America, N.A.

• Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
• Decided: July 2, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00356
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:24-cv-00356-MOC-WCM

ISADORA Y. WALKER, and ) ANDREA G. GARCIA, ) individually and on behalf of all ) others similarly situated, ) ) ORDER Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss,” Doc. 25) and a Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Extend,” Doc. 30). On March 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint. Doc. 1. On May 31, 2024, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 25. On June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs’ deadline to file an Amended Complaint or a response to the Motion to Dismiss was extended through and including July 1, 2024. The Motion to Extend was filed on June 27, 2024. Doc. 30. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on July 1, 2024. Doc. 31. I. The Motion to Dismiss “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.’”); 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is well settled that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot”).

Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is moot as a matter of law. II. The Motion to Extend By the Motion to Extend, the parties request that: 1) Defendant’s deadline to file a response to the Amended Complaint be extended to August

9, 2024, 2) Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to an anticipated Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint be extended to September 6, 2024, and 3) Defendant’s deadline to file a reply in support of its anticipated Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint be extended to September 27, 2024. Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint will be

extended. Should a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint be filed by Defendant, and should the parties reasonably require additional time to complete the briefing relative to that motion, they may request appropriate

extensions at that time. However, their request for extensions of the response and reply deadlines for such a motion, which has not yet been filed, will be denied without prejudice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT AS A MATTER OF LAW. 2. The Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule Regarding Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) is GRANTED IN PART as follows: a. The deadline for Defendant to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is EXTENDED

through and including August 9, 2024. b. The parties’ request for extensions of the briefing deadlines relative to an anticipated Motion to Dismiss by Defendant is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as stated herein. Signed: July 2, 2024 < J <4

W. Carleton Metcalf re United States Magistrate Judge acl 4