Bernath v. Seavey

Filing 38

ORDER denying as moot 23 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 24 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 25 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 8/18/2015. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DANIEL A. BERNATH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-358-FtM-99CM

MARK CAMERON SEAVEY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. On June 16, 2015, pro
se Plaintiff Daniel A. Bernath initiated this copyright infringement action against Defendant
Mark Cameron Seavey. (Doc. #1). Defendant then filed an Answer (Doc. #10). Eight
days later, however, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint under Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #20). That same day, he simultaneously filed
three motions to strike Defendant's Answer and counterclaims: (1) Notice of Motion and
Motion to Strike Answer and/or Exhibits of Mark C. Seavey (Doc. #23); (2) Notice of
Motion and Motion to Strike Answer of Cross Complainant Mark C. Seavey (Doc. #24);
and (3) Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Complaint of Cross Complainant Mark C.
Seavey (Doc. #25). On July 24, 2015, Defendant filed an Answer to the First Amended
Complaint (Doc. #31).

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

The First Amended Complaint is the operative pleading in this case.

See

Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting,
"[a]n amended complaint supersedes an original complaint"). As a result, Defendant's
answer to the original complaint has been displaced by its subsequent Answer to the
Amended Complaint. (Doc. #31). Consequently, Plaintiff's three motions to strike the
original answer (Doc. #23, Doc. #24, & Doc. #25) are denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff Daniel A. Bernath's Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Answer
and/or Exhibits of Mark C. Seavey (Doc. #23) is DENIED as moot.
(2) Plaintiff Daniel A. Bernath's Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Answer of
Cross Complainant Mark C. Seavey (Doc. #24) is DENIED as moot.
(3) Plaintiff Daniel A. Bernath's Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Complaint of
Cross Complainant Mark C. Seavey (Doc. #25) is DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 17th day of August, 2015.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2