The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Epperley

W.D. North Carolina

The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Epperley

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedJuly 5, 2022

Docket5:22-cv-00040

StatusUnknown

This text of The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Epperley (The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Epperley) 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

The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Epperley, (W.D.N.C. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-00040-KDB-DSC

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY ) COMPANY OF AMERICA et. al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ORDER v. ) ) NELSON R. EPPERLEY et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion[s] to Dismiss …” (documents ##6 and 10) filed June 8, 2022, and June 17, 2022, respectively. Plaintiffs filed their “Amended Complaint” (document #13) on June 29, 2022. 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 twenty-one 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,” a party may amend once as a matter of course, provided that it does so within “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.” Id. Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint as of right within twenty-one days following receipt of the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. It is well settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F. 3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motion to dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ “Motion[s] to Dismiss ...” (documents ##6 and 10) are 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. SO ORDERED. Signed: July 5, 2022

fr4c ey David S. Cayer : United States Magistrate Judge ae

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 STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-00040-KDB-DSC

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY ) COMPANY OF AMERICA et. al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ORDER v. ) ) NELSON R. EPPERLEY et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion[s] to Dismiss …” (documents ##6 and 10) filed June 8, 2022, and June 17, 2022, respectively. Plaintiffs filed their “Amended Complaint” (document #13) on June 29, 2022. 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 twenty-one 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,” a party may amend once as a matter of course, provided that it does so within “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.” Id. Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint as of right within twenty-one days following receipt of the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. 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. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F. 3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motion to dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ “Motion[s] to Dismiss ...” (documents ##6 and 10) are 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. SO ORDERED. Signed: July 5, 2022

fr4c ey David S. Cayer : United States Magistrate Judge ae

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Epperley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-travelers-indemnity-company-of-america-v-epperley-ncwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack