Monroe v. Forjas Taurus S.A., et al.
ORDER finding as moot 25 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot 16 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 16 Motion for More Definite Statement. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 2/14/2018. (Collins, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STACEY MONROE, Administrator for the
Estate of Erline Freeman
TAURUS HOLDINGS, INC., TAURUS
INC., and FORJAS TAURUS, S.A.,
This matter comes now before the court upon defendants Taurus Holdings Inc. and Taurus
International Manufacturing Inc.’s (together the “Taurus defendants”) motion to dismiss. (DE 16).
Also before the court is defendant Forjas Taurus, S.A.’s motion to dismiss. (DE 25).
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, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal
quotations omitted); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1476 (3d ed. 1998)
(“A pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies and
remains in effect throughout the action unless it subsequently is modified. . . . Once an amended
pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case”).
As relevant here, plaintiff filed complaint on December 12, 2017. (DE 6).1 On January 8,
2018, the Taurus defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss, or alternative motion for more
definite statement. On January 30, 2018, plaintiff filed amended complaint. (DE 20).2 Defendant
Forjas filed its motion to dismiss on February 12, 2018. (DE 25).
Where plaintiff amended her complaint after the Taurus defendants filed the instant motion,
said motion, (DE 16), is DENIED as MOOT. Although defendant Forjas filed its motion to dismiss
after plaintiff filed amended complaint, where that motion is based on plaintiff’s original complaint,
that motion, (DE 25) is also DENIED as MOOT. (See DE 26, p. 2) (referencing plaintiff’s
complaint docketed at DE 6).
SO ORDERED, this the 14th day of February, 2018.
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
Plaintiff initiated this action on December 8, 2017. That same date, the court noticed plaintiff of certain deficiencies
with her complaint and summons. In response to the court’s notice, plaintiff ultimately filed a corrected complaint on
December 12, 2017. (DE 6). The corrected complaint is identified on the docket as an amended complaint, however, it
is plaintiff’s original pleading.
Plaintiff filed duplicate amended complaints on January 30, 2018. (DE 18, 20). The amended pleadings are substantively
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?