Matthews v. Guest Services, Inc.

W.D. North Carolina

Matthews v. Guest Services, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedApril 11, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-00910

StatusUnknown

This text of Matthews v. Guest Services, Inc. (Matthews v. Guest Services, Inc.) 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

Matthews v. Guest Services, Inc., (W.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-00910-KDB-SCR

ROBERT MATTHEWS, et. al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) GUEST SERVICES, INC., et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 12) filed March 20, 2024, and Plaintiffs’ “First Amended Class Action Complaint” (Doc. No. 16) filed April 10, 2024. 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, 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). Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint within 21 days following receipt of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the amendment is as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). It is well-settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot.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). The Court makes no determination as to the merits of any of Plaintiff's claims and all objections and defenses raised by Defendants in its initial Motion are preserved. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 12) is administratively DENIED as moot without prejudice. 2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell. Signed: April 11, 2024 SO ORDERED.

Susan C. Rodriguez United States Magistrate Judge * ME?

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-00910-KDB-SCR

ROBERT MATTHEWS, et. al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) GUEST SERVICES, INC., et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 12) filed March 20, 2024, and Plaintiffs’ “First Amended Class Action Complaint” (Doc. No. 16) filed April 10, 2024. 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, 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). Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint within 21 days following receipt of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the amendment is as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 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). The Court makes no determination as to the merits of any of Plaintiff's claims and all objections and defenses raised by Defendants in its initial Motion are preserved. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 12) is administratively DENIED as moot without prejudice. 2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell. Signed: April 11, 2024 SO ORDERED.

Susan C. Rodriguez United States Magistrate Judge * ME?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Matthews v. Guest Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-guest-services-inc-ncwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack