Newkirk v. GKN Armstrong Wheels, Inc et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying as moot 6 Partial Motion to Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment filed by Defendant GKN Armstrong Wheels Inc (See Order Text). Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 11/3/2015. (des)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
BRAD NEWKIRK,
No. C15-3127-MWB
Plaintiff,
vs.
GKN ARMSTRONG WHEELS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION
TO DISMISS OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

___________________________

This case is before me on defendant GKN Armstrong Wheels’s (“GKN”) Partial
Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment (docket no. 6). In
response, plaintiff Brad Newkirk has filed an Amended Complaint, as well as a resistance
to GKN’s motion. “[A]n amended complaint replaces the original.” Florida Dep't of
State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 670, 702 (1982) (White, J., concurring in part
& dissenting in part on other grounds, joined by Powell, Rehnquist, & O'Connor, JJ.).
The filing of the amended complaint renders the original Complaint null and void. See
In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (“It is well-established
that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original
complaint without legal effect.”); see also Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. v. El Dia, Inc.,
490 F.3d 86, 88 n.2 (1st Cir. 2007) (“[Plaintiff's] amended complaint completely
supersedes his original complaint, and thus the original complaint no longer performs
any function in the case.”) (citation omitted); Swanson v. Perez, 250 Fed. App’x 596,
597 (5th Cir. 2007) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and
renders it of no legal effect ....”) (quoting King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir.

1994)); Enderwood v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., 233 Fed. App’x 793, 800 (10th
Cir. 2007) (“an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original complaint and
renders it of no legal effect”) (quoting Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517
(10th Cir. 1991)); Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001)
(amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect).
Because the original Complaint has been superseded and nullified, there is no
longer a live dispute about the propriety or merit of the claims asserted therein; therefore,
any motion to dismiss such claims is moot. See Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi
Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002) (“If anything [plaintiff's] motion to amend
the complaint rendered moot [defendant's] motion to dismiss the original complaint.”)
(citation omitted)); see also Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 655 F. Supp.2d 948, 958
(D. Minn. 2009) (“[A]s a general proposition, if a defendant files a Motion to Dismiss,
and the plaintiff later files an Amended Complaint, the amended pleading renders the
defendant's Motion to Dismiss moot.” (citations omitted)); Cedar View, Ltd. v.
Colpetzer, 2006 WL 456482, *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2006) (the “earlier motion to
dismiss ... and motion for judgment on the pleadings . . . are denied as moot, as they
refer to a version of the complaint that has since been replaced. . . .”); Kentucky Press
Ass'n, Inc. v. Kentucky, 355 F.Supp.2d 853, 857 (E.D. Ky. 2005) (“Plaintiff's amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint, thus making the motion to dismiss the
original complaint moot.”) (citing Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d
299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, defendant GKN’s Partial Motion To Dismiss
Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment is denied as moot. Defendant GKN is,
of course, free to file a renewed motions to dismiss, directed at the allegations in the
Amended Complaint.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of November, 2015.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

3