State Farm Life Insurance Company v. Rogers et al.

Filing 21

ORDER that Deft Sharon Rogers' 15 Motion to Dismiss Defendants Emily Harvey and Kyle Rogers' Crossclaim is DENIED AS MOOT AS A MATTER OF LAW. Signed by US Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 2/6/2024. (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:23-cv-00332-MR-WCM
STATE FARM LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHARON ROGERS;
EMILY HARVEY; and
KYLE ROGERS,
Defendants.
_________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15), by
which Defendant Sharon Rogers moves to dismiss a cross claim filed by
Defendants Emily Harvey and Kyle Rogers.
On November 15, 2023, State Farm Life Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”)
filed an Interpleader Complaint against all Defendants. The dispute pertains
to the payment of the proceeds of a life insurance policy previously held by
Thomas Harmon Rogers (the “Policy”). Doc. 1.
On January 8, 2024, Emily Harvey and Kyle Rogers filed an answer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint, as well as a cross claim against Sharon Rogers (the

“Cross Claim,” Doc. 11).1
On January 19, 2024, Sharon Rogers filed a Motion to Dismiss the Cross
Claim. Docs. 15, 16.
On January 24, 2024, Emily Harvey and Kyle Rogers filed an amended
answer and cross claim against Sharon Rogers (the “Amended Cross Claim,”
Doc. 17).
On February 6, 2024, Sharon Rogers answered the Amended Cross
Claim. Doc. 20.
“The general rule ... is that an amended pleading supersedes the original
pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.” Young v. City of Mount
Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Fawzy v. Wauquiez Boats
SNC, 873 F.3d 451, 455 (4th Cir. 2017) (“Because a properly filed amended
complaint supersedes the original one and becomes the operative complaint in
the case, it renders the original complaint ‘of no effect.’”); Colin v. Marconi
Commerce Systems Employees’ Retirement Plan, 335 F.Supp.2d 590, 614
(M.D.N.C. 2004) (“Earlier motions made by Defendants were filed prior to and
have been rendered moot by Plaintiffs’ filing of the Second Amended
Complaint”); Ledford v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, No. 1:20-CV-005-

Sharon Rogers has also filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and a cross claim
against Emily Harvey and Kyle Rogers. Doc. 14. Emily Harvey and Kyle Rogers have
answered Sharon Rogers’ cross claim. Doc. 19.
1

2

MR-DCK, 2020 WL 1042235 at 1 (W.D.N.C. March 3, 2020) (“It is well settled
that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and
that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is
DENIED AS MOOT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

Signed: February 6, 2024

3