KARGARIAN v. AUTO ZONERS, LLC, 3:12CV144-MOC-DSC. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120605a02
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's "Partial Motion to Dismiss" (document #16) filed April 30, 2012 and Plaintiff's "First Amended Complaint" (document #21) filed June 1, 2012. 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, and the Motion is now ripe for consideration. It is well settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings
Summary: ORDER DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's "Partial Motion to Dismiss" (document #16) filed April 30, 2012 and Plaintiff's "First Amended Complaint" (document #21) filed June 1, 2012. 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, and the Motion is now ripe for consideration. It is well settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings ..
More
ORDER
DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's "Partial Motion to Dismiss" (document #16) filed April 30, 2012 and Plaintiff's "First Amended Complaint" (document #21) filed June 1, 2012.1
This matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, and the Motion is now ripe for consideration.
It is well settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect); Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motion to dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint).
Accordingly, Defendant's "Partial Motion to Dismiss" (document #16) is administratively DENIED as moot without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff initially appeared pro se. On June 1, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel filed an "Appearance of Counsel" (document #20).
Source: Leagle
