Ospina v. Hord Services, Inc.

W.D. North Carolina

Ospina v. Hord Services, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedOctober 28, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-00122

StatusUnknown

This text of Ospina v. Hord Services, Inc. (Ospina v. Hord 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

Ospina v. Hord Services, Inc., (W.D.N.C. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:22-cv-00122-MR-WCM

JUAN OSPINA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER v. ) ) HORD SERVICES, INC.; ) ARTHUR SERVICES, INC.; ) HSI LAND CLEARING, LLC; ) HSI LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ) HORD’S CONTAINER SERVICE LLC ) , and ) DWAYNE HORD, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Hord Services, Inc., Arthur Services, Inc., HSI Land Clearing, LLC, and Dwayne Hord (the “Motion to Dismiss,” Doc. 8). By Order filed on October 24, 2022, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. Doc. 19. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October 27, 2022. Doc. 20. “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is well settled that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT. This denial is without prejudice to the filing of any motions challenging the Amended Complaint, if appropriate.

October 28, 2022

W. Carleton Metcalf py United States Magistrate Judge + AM J

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 ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:22-cv-00122-MR-WCM

JUAN OSPINA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER v. ) ) HORD SERVICES, INC.; ) ARTHUR SERVICES, INC.; ) HSI LAND CLEARING, LLC; ) HSI LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ) HORD’S CONTAINER SERVICE LLC ) , and ) DWAYNE HORD, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Hord Services, Inc., Arthur Services, Inc., HSI Land Clearing, LLC, and Dwayne Hord (the “Motion to Dismiss,” Doc. 8). By Order filed on October 24, 2022, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. Doc. 19. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October 27, 2022. Doc. 20. “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”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT. This denial is without prejudice to the filing of any motions challenging the Amended Complaint, if appropriate.

October 28, 2022

W. Carleton Metcalf py United States Magistrate Judge + AM J

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ospina v. Hord Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ospina-v-hord-services-inc-ncwd-2022.

Opinion

W. Carleton Metcalf py United States Magistrate Judge + AM J

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack