Barrera v. Hitachi Koki, U.S.A. Ltd. et al.

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 2/8/2016. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
*
*
*
*
*
******

TOMAS BARRERA
v.
HITACHI KOKI U.S.A, LTD., et al.

Civil No. JFM-15-3704

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Tomas Barrera, a construction assembler, performed work for defendant
Builders FirstSource, Inc. (“FirstSource”) at a manufacturing facility in Maryland. On January
3, 2013, Barrera was working at the facility using a pneumatic nail gun produced by defendant
Hitachi Koki U.S.A., LTD. (“Hitachi”). In the course of Barrera’s work, the nail gun became
jammed, causing a nail to fly out of the gun and strike Barrera in one of his eyes under his
goggles. The nail caused significant damage to Barrera’s eye, rendering him blind in that eye.
In late 2014, Barrera filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey asserting torts claims
against FirstSource and Hitachi. The case was then transferred, by consent order, from the
District of New Jersey to this Court. (ECF No. 15). Hitachi has filed a motion to dismiss
Barrera’s original complaint. (ECF No. 18). Also pending is a motion to file a First Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 29). I now grant plaintiff’s motion to file a First Amended Complaint and
deny as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss.
First, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows a party to amend its pleading with
the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Defendant Hitachi has given its
consent to Barrera’s motion to file a First Amended Complaint, (see ECF No. 30, p. 1); and
accordingly, I grant Barrera’s motion.

1

Second, Hitachi’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is moot. “The general rule . . . is that
an amended pleading supercedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no
effect.” Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001). Here, because the
original complaint, to which defendant’s motion to dismiss relates, is no longer in effect,
defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.1 See A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz
Vegetarian USA, Inc., 795 F. Supp. 2d 365, 367 (D. Md. 2011) (denying a motion to dismiss a
complaint as moot after an amended complaint was filed).
CONCLUSION
For the stated reasons, Barrera’s motion to file a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29)
is granted and Hitachi’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is denied as moot. A separate order
follows.

2/8/2016

/s/
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge

Date

1

Of course, this ruling is without prejudice to defendants filing a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint.
2