Underhill v. Royer

Filing 20

ORDER denying as moot 14 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Scott L. Pavlich, and 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Sheri Royer, rejecting as moot Stipulation to Extend Deadline to to Respond to Motions to Dismiss and Cancelling April 15, 2015 Hearing. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOHN H. UNDERHILL,
Plaintiff,
v

Case No. 14-cv-14768
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

SHERI ROYER, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT, REJECTING STIPULATION
AS MOOT, AND CANCELLING HEARING
On December 17, 2014, Plaintiff John H. Underhill filed a complaint against Defendants,
alleging violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights and seeking a declaratory
judgment. On February 2, 2015, Defendants Scott Pavlich and Sheri Royer each filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint. ECF Nos. 14, 15. The Court therefore set the motions to dismiss for
hearing on April 15, 2015.
On February 23, 2015, Underhill filed a First Amended Complaint.1

ECF No. 19.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) permits a party to amend a pleading as a matter of
course “21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .” Having filed an amended
complaint as a matter of course, Underhill’s amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint for all purposes. Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 410 (6th Cir. 2014). “The filing of
the amended complaint ‘render[s] the original complaint null and void.” Glass v. The Kellogg
Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (quoting Vadas v. United States, 527 F.3d 16, 22
n.4 (2d Cir. 2007)).
1

Underhill has not explained how his Amended Complaint differs from his original Complaint.

Because the original complaint has been superseded, there is no longer a live dispute
about the merits of the claims asserted in it. See Cedar View, Ltd. v. Colpetzer, 2006 WL
456482, at *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 . . . .”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant Scott Pavlich’s Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant Sheri Royer’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
(ECF No. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for Underhill
to respond to the motions to dismiss is REJECTED AS MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that the hearing set for April 15, 2015 is CANCELLED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: February 24, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on February 24, 2015.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-2-