Webber v. Town of Mooresville Police Department

W.D. North Carolina

Webber v. Town of Mooresville Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedAugust 28, 2024

Docket5:24-cv-00123

StatusUnknown

This text of Webber v. Town of Mooresville Police Department (Webber v. Town of Mooresville Police Department) 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

Webber v. Town of Mooresville Police Department, (W.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-123-KDB-DCK SUSAN LEE WEBBER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) TOWN OF MOORESVILLE POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Document No. 11) filed August 26, 2024. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will direct that the pending motion to dismiss be denied as moot. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applies to the amendment of pleadings and allows a party to amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving, or “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 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). Rule 15 further provides: (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). DISCUSSION The undersigned notes that Plaintiff timely filed an “Amended Complaint” (Document No. 14) pursuant to Rule 15 on August 28, 2024. As such, the undersigned will direct that “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Document No. 11) be denied as moot. It is well settled that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule ... is that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.”); 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”); Brown v. Sikora and Associates, Inc., 311 Fed.Appx. 568, 572 (4th Cir. Apr. 16, 2008); and Atlantic Skanska, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 3:07-CV-266-FDW, 2007 WL 3224985 at *4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2007). To the extent Defendant contends the Amended Complaint is deficient, this Order is without prejudice to Defendant filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Document No. 11 )is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed: August 28, 2024 SO ORDERED. DiC pe David C. Keesler “ey United States Magistrate Judge get

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. 5:24-CV-123-KDB-DCK SUSAN LEE WEBBER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) TOWN OF MOORESVILLE POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Document No. 11) filed August 26, 2024. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will direct that the pending motion to dismiss be denied as moot. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applies to the amendment of pleadings and allows a party to amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving, or “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 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). Rule 15 further provides: (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). DISCUSSION The undersigned notes that Plaintiff timely filed an “Amended Complaint” (Document No. 14) pursuant to Rule 15 on August 28, 2024. As such, the undersigned will direct that “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Document No. 11) be denied as moot. 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. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule ... is that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.”); 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”); Brown v. Sikora and Associates, Inc., 311 Fed.Appx. 568, 572 (4th Cir. Apr. 16, 2008); and Atlantic Skanska, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 3:07-CV-266-FDW, 2007 WL 3224985 at *4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2007). To the extent Defendant contends the Amended Complaint is deficient, this Order is without prejudice to Defendant filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Document No. 11 )is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed: August 28, 2024 SO ORDERED. DiC pe David C. Keesler “ey United States Magistrate Judge get

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Webber v. Town of Mooresville Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webber-v-town-of-mooresville-police-department-ncwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack