Messinger v. Window World, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

ALVIN MESSINGER

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00912

WINDOW WORLD, INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the court is Defendant Window World, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8]. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED as moot. On June 5, 2018, Defendant Window World, Inc. moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s original Complaint [ECF No. 1-1]. On August 1, 2018, the court granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint [ECF No. 26] and directed the Clerk to file the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 26-1] as the operative pleading in the matter. “As a general rule, ‘an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.’” , 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting In re , 226 F.3d 160, 162 (2d Cir. 2000)). When a plaintiff amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, a court may deny the motion as moot. , 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motion to dismiss original complaint because it was superseded by the amended complaint); see also Sennott v. Adams, No. 6:18-cev- 02813-GRA, 2014 WL 2434745, at *3 (D.S.C. May 29, 2014) (‘Thus, a defendant's previous motion to dismiss is rendered moot when a plaintiff files an amended complaint.”); Skibbe v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-01393, 2014 WL 2117088, at *3 (S.D. W. Va. May 21, 2014) (denying as moot defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss where “[tlhe Third Amended Complaint superseded the Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint”). Here, plaintiff's amended pleading superseded its original Complaint. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8] is DENIED as moot. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: October 5, 2018

Ip G ew STATES DISTRICT JUDGE