Burgess v. System High Corporation et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 12 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 21 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 6/30/2015. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

United States District Court
District Of Maryland
Chambers of
Ellen Lipton Hollander
District Court Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-0742

June 30, 2015
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL
Re:

Burgess v. System High Corp. et al.
Civil Action No. ELH-14-3895

Dear Counsel:
As you know, on December 15, 2014, plaintiff Susan Burgess filed suit against System
High Corporation and Chuck Hagel, as Secretary of the United States Department of Defense.
See ECF 1 (“Complaint). The Complaint alleges, inter alia, discrimination and retaliation on the
basis of disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified as amended at 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Defendant System High Corporation filed an answer (ECF 6). John McHugh, Secretary
of the Army (who was not named as a defendant), moved to dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). ECF 12, “Motion to Dismiss.” In the Motion to Dismiss, McHugh
noted that he was “improperly sued as Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense.” ECF 12 at 1. He
argued that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as to the federal defendant because
plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and because Congress has not waived
sovereign immunity as to the Army with respect to ADA claims. Plaintiff opposed the Motion to
Dismiss. ECF 15.
Thereafter, plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint. ECF 16. She sought, inter alia, to
state “causes of action against the Defendant John McHugh, Secretary of the Army . . . .,” in lieu
of Hagel. In addition, plaintiff sought to add a new claim, now found in Count IV. With leave
of Court (ECF 17), plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on June 16, 2015. ECF 18, “Amended
Complaint.”
Defendant System High Corporation filed an answer to the Amended Complaint. ECF
20. McHugh, now a named defendant, filed a “Consent Motion for an Extension of Time to File
Reply Brief” (ECF 21, “Motion for Extension of Time”), requesting an extension of time to file a
reply in connection with the Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint. No hearing is necessary
to resolve the pending Motion to Dismiss or the Motion for Extension of Time. See Local Rule
105.6.

It appears that the government believes its prior motion to dismiss the Complaint is
applicable as to the Amended Complaint. “As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily
supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238
F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted); see also First Tennessee Bank Nat. Ass'n v.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 501 F. App’x 255, 258 n.2 (4th Cir. 2012) (“The original
complaint, which was dismissed without prejudice, became a nullity upon the filing of the
amended complaint.”); 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (“A pleading that has been amended under
Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies.[] Once an amended pleading is interposed, the
original pleading no longer performs any function in the case . . . . ”). Once a pleading has been
superseded, it follows that “motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot.”
Blount v. Carlson Hotels, No. 11-452–M0C–DSC, 2011 WL 6098697, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 6,
2011) (citing Young, 238 F.3d at 573).
Here, the Amended Complaint superseded the initial Complaint. Accordingly, the
pending Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant McHugh, directed at the initial Complaint, is
moot. As a result, there is no basis for the Motion for Extension of Time, requesting additional
time to file a reply in connection with the Motion to Dismiss.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 12) and the Motion for Extension
of Time (ECF 21) are DENIED, as moot. However, this ruling is without prejudice to the federal
defendant’s right to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it is an Order of the Court, and the
Clerk is directed to docket it as such.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

-2-