Price v. Pierce

• Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
• Decided: February 21, 2020
• Docket: 5:19-cv-00228
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:19-CV-228-M

I.P.,a minor child, by his grandfather and Next ) Friend DONALD G. NEWSOME, ) MICHAEL PRICE and CHANDLER ) PRICE, ) Plaintiffs, v ) ) WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF LARRY M. ) PIERCE, in his official capacity; SERGEANT ) ORDER SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER BRANDY ) JONES, in her individual capacity; ) SERGEANT SCHOOL RESOURCE ) OFFICER SHATANA LATICE JONES, in her individual capacity; LIEUTENANT SCHOOL ) RESOURCE OFFICER WILLIAM KATES in ) his individual capacity; SERGEANT SCHOOL _) RESOURCE OFFICER MARION WALTON ) in his individual capacity; WESTERN ) SURETY COMPANY; MARK ) ARMSTRONG, individually and as employee ) for BUTTERFLY EFFECTS, LLC; BRITTNE ) BROOKS, individually and as employee for ) BUTTERFLY EFFECTS, LLC, BUTTERFLY ) EFFECTS, LLC, JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2, ) ) Defendants.

This matter is before the undersigned on (1) Defendants Butterfly Effects, LLC, Brittne Brooks, and Mark Armstrong’s (the “Butterfly Defendants’) Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint {[DE-75] and (2) Defendants Sergeant

Brandy Jones, Sergeant Shatana Latice Jones, Lieutenant William Kates, and Sergeant Marion Walton (the “Officer Defendants”) Motion for Leave to File Defendant Officers’ Partial Motion to Dismiss and for the Filing to be Deemed Timely [DE-74]. After considering the motions, and determining that good cause exists, Defendants’ motions should be GRANTED. It is therefore ordered that: (1) the deadline of the Butterfly Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is hereby extended to February 14, 2020, and the Butterfly Defendants’ motion to dismiss [DE-72] and accompanying memorandum of law [DE- 73] are hereby deemed to be filed timely; (2) the deadline of the Officer Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is hereby extended to February 14, 2020, and the clerk is hereby directed to file their motion to dismiss and accompanying memorandum of law [DE-74 (attachments | and 2)], which shall be deemed to be filed timely; and (3) in light of the Second Amended Complaint [DE-63] and the abovementioned motions to dismiss, Defendants’ prior motions to dismiss [DE-26, 38, 49, 50] are now, accordingly, moot. See Parsons v. North Carolina Dep't of Revenue, No. 5:18-cv-452-FL, 2019 WL 2181913, at *2 (E.D.N.C. May 20, 2019) (“Where an amended complaint has been filed with leave of court, motions to dismiss earlier complaints are denied as moot. Plaintiff's original complaint is now ‘of no legal effect.’” (citing Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001)); see also 6 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 1998) (“A pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies and remains in effect throughout the action unless it subsequently is modified. Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case” (footnote omitted)). It is further ordered that Plaintiffs are directed to file their oppositions to the Butterfly Defendants’ and the Officer Defendants’ motions to dismiss within fourteen (14) days of the entry

of this order, or inform the Court whether it should deem their previous oppositions [DE-58, 60] responsive to these motions. It is further ordered that the abovementioned motions to dismiss will be marked submitted upon receipt of Plaintiffs’ oppositions or response, and no reply briefs will be permitted, So ordered this the “day of February, 2020.

tvs _! RICHARD E. MYERS I] UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE