United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
CARLA MATTHEWS, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
HYATT CORPORATION, Defendant.
C. KEESLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant's
Motion To Dismiss Count II Of Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint” (Document No. 35) and “Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint
And To Stay All Proceedings Pending Outcome Of Voluntary
Mediation” (Document No. 54). 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 arguments, the record, and
the applicable authority, the undersigned will direct that
the motion to dismiss be denied as moot and that the
motion to amend be granted.
Carla Matthews (“Plaintiff” or
“Matthews”) initiated this action on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated with the filing of
a “Collective And Class Action Complaint With Jury
Demand” (Document No. 1) on July 14, 2017. The
Complaint asserts claims against Defendant Hyatt Corporation
(“Defendant” or “Hyatt”) for: (1)
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §
201, et seq. - failure to pay overtime; (2) breach
of contract; and (3) violation of the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act, N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 95-25.1, et
seq. (Document No. 1).
Motion To Dismiss Count II Of Plaintiff's
Complaint” (Document No. 24) was filed on September 15,
2017. Plaintiff Matthews then filed the “First Amended
Collective And Class Action Complaint With Jury Demand”
(Document No. 29) (the “Amended Complaint”) on
October 6, 2017. The Amended Complaint asserts the same
claims as the original Complaint. (Document No. 29).
pending before the Court is “Defendant's Motion To
Dismiss Count II Of Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint” (Document No. 35), filed on October 25,
2017. In addition, Plaintiff Matthews filed another motion to
amend - “Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion For Leave To
File Second Amended Complaint And To Stay All Proceedings
Pending Outcome Of Voluntary Mediation” (Document No.
54) on May 17, 2018.
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
(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.
motion to amend, Plaintiffs report that the parties have
agreed to voluntarily mediate this case on July 19, 2018; and
that Defendant does not oppose the filing of a Second Amended
Complaint, but requests additional time to respond to the
Second Amended Complaint. (Document No. 54, p.2). Noting the
parties' agreement, the undersigned will allow the motion
to amend and allow Defendant additional time to file a
response. However, further extensions of the deadlines in
this case are unlikely to be allowed.
Second Amended Complaint will supersede the First Amended
Complaint; therefore, the undersigned will direct that
“Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Count II Of
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint” (Document No.
35) be denied as moot. Defendant may file a renewed motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, if appropriate.
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 ...