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.

Simmons v. Mastec North America, Inc.

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

April 12, 2018

TRAVIS SIMMONS, Plaintiff,
v.
MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC.; MASTEC SERVICES COMPANY, INC.; and MASTEC, INC., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DAVID C. KEESLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint” (Document No. 29) filed April 11, 2018. 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 and the record, and noting consent of Defendants' counsel, the undersigned will grant the motion.

         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).

         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

         The undersigned is not persuaded there is any evidence of prejudice, bad faith, or futility to outweigh the policy favoring granting leave to amend; therefore, the undersigned will allow Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which supersedes the original Complaint. In addition, the undersigned will direct that “Defendants' Motion For Partial Dismissal Of Plaintiff's Complaint” (Document No. 16) filed on October 25, 2017, be denied as moot. Defendants may file 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, 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).

         CONCLUSION

         IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff s Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint” (Document No. 29) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint on or before April 16, 2018 .[1]

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendants' Motion For Partial Dismissal Of Plaintiffs Complaint” (Document No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.

         SO ...


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.