Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parker v. Thomas & Betts Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

March 23, 2017

ANTHONY PARKER, Plaintiffs,
v.
THOMAS & BETTS CORPORATION; LARRY HUINKER; ROXANNE BLISS; JAMES SCOTT, Defendants.

          ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

          DAVID C. KEESLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint” (Document No. 9) filed March 7, 2017, and “Plaintiff's Motion To Amend Complaint” (Document No. 14) filed March 21, 2017. These motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motions, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will grant the motion to amend, and recommend 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) (emphasis added). 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).

         Under Rule 15, a “motion to amend should be denied only where it would be prejudicial, there has been bad faith, or the amendment would be futile.” Nourison Rug Corporation v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276-77 (4th Cir. 2001)); see also, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, “the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court.” Pittston Co. v. U.S., 199 F.3d 694, 705 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).

         DISCUSSION

         Pro se Plaintiff has filed for leave to amend within twenty-one (21) days of service of Defendants' Rule 12(b) motion (Document No. 9). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B), the Court will allow Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which will supersede the original Complaint. Furthermore, the undersigned will respectfully recommend that “Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint” (Document No. 9) be denied as moot. This recommendation is without prejudice to Defendants filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, if appropriate.

         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, 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”); Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391, 397 (D.Md. 2002) (quoting 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (“A pleading that has been amended ... supersedes the pleading it modifies .... Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case.”)); 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).

         CONCLUSION

         IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff's Motion To Amend Complaint” (Document No. 14) is GRANTED.[1] Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint on or before April 3, 2017. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, and should attach any relevant EEOC documents including any underlying Charge of Discrimination and Notice of Right to Sue.

         IT IS RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that “Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint” (Document No. 9) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

         TIME ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.