Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BLAIR v. STATE, 1:13-CV-2008. (2013)

Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20130823c06 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2013
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge. AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2013, upon consideration of defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 2) filed on July 26, 2013, and upon further consideration of plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 7) filed on August 22, 2013, and the court finding that an amended complaint renders the original complaint a legal nullity, see Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp. , 303 F.3d 271 , 276 (3d Cir. 2002) ("An amended complaint supercedes the original version in p
More

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2013, upon consideration of defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 2) filed on July 26, 2013, and upon further consideration of plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 7) filed on August 22, 2013, and the court finding that an amended complaint renders the original complaint a legal nullity, see Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002) ("An amended complaint supercedes the original version in providing the blueprint for the future course of the lawsuit."); 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) ("Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case. ..."), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendant shall respond to the amended complaint (Doc. 7) in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. The motion (Doc. 2) to dismiss the complaint is DENIED as moot without prejudice.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer