O'Byrne v. Weyerhaeuser Company

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedApril 9, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-02493
StatusUnknown

This text of O'Byrne v. Weyerhaeuser Company (O'Byrne v. Weyerhaeuser Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
O'Byrne v. Weyerhaeuser Company, (S.D. Ohio 2020).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH O’BYRNE, et al. : : Case No. 2:19-cv-2493 Plaintiffs, : : CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY v. : : Magistrate Judge Deavers WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, et al. : : Defendants. :

OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Westport Homes, Inc.’s (“Westport”) and Defendant Weyerhaeuser Co.’s (“Weyerhaeuser”) Motions to Strike Jury Demand (ECF Nos. 13, 15) filed in October 2019. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 14, 2019 against Westport and Weyerhaeuser and demanded a jury trial. (ECF No. 1). Westport filed a Motion to Strike the Jury Demand, arguing that Plaintiffs voluntarily waived their right to a jury trial through a purchase agreement they signed with Westport. (ECF No. 13). Weyerhauser joined in Westport’s Motion, arguing that the jury waiver in the contract between the contracting Plaintiffs and Westport also applies to the Plaintiffs’ claims against Weyerhaeuser because the cause of action against Weyerhaeuser arises out of the purchase agreement. (ECF No. 15). With the Motions to Strike pending, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 24, 2020. (ECF No. 26). Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, it “replaces the original.” Fla. Dep’t of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 670, 702 (1982). The original complaint is thereafter “null and void.” Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (quoting Vadas v. U.S., 527 F.3d 16, 22 n.4 (2d Cir. 2007)). With the complaint and the claims it contains nullified, motions relating to that complaint and its claims are thus moot. Id. (citing Cedar View, Ltd. v. Colpetzer, No. 5:05-CV-00782 2006 WL 456482, *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2006); Ky. Press Ass’n, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 355 F.Supp.2d 853, 857 (E.D. Ky. 2005)). Defendants’ Motions to Strike (ECF Nos. 13, 15) are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

ALGENON L. MARBL Chief Ur ates District Judge DATED: April 9, 2020

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

Related

Vadas v. United States
527 F.3d 16 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Kentucky Press Ass'n, Inc. v. Kentucky
355 F. Supp. 2d 853 (E.D. Kentucky, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
O'Byrne v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obyrne-v-weyerhaeuser-company-ohsd-2020.