United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
C. Keesler United States Magistrate Judge
MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the “Motion Of
Wagner For Leave To File First Amended Complaint”
(Document No. 19) filed April 9, 2019. 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 grant the
motion to amend, and direct that the pending motion to
dismiss be denied as moot.
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.
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).
files the instant motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
Plaintiff asserts that “new information and facts have
been discovered to support claims of fraud against the
Defendants, and that the proposed Amended Complaint . . .
addresses several concerns raised by the Defendants in their
pending Motion to Dismiss.” (Document No. 19, p. 1)
(citing Document Nos. 16 and 16-1). See also
(Document Nos. 19-1 and 23).
oppose the motion, arguing that it is futile, untimely, and
unduly prejudicial. (Document No. 20) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
undersigned is not persuaded there is sufficient evidence of
prejudice, bad faith, or futility to outweigh the interests
of justice that favor granting leave to amend; therefore, the
undersigned will allow Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint
which supersedes the original Complaint (Document No. 1).
Furthermore, the undersigned will direct that Defendants'
“Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6)” (Document No. 16) be denied as moot.
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,
extent Defendants contend the Amended Complaint is deficient,
this Order is without prejudice to Defendants filing a
renewed motion to ...