Richardson v. Casual Male Retail Group, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss; adopting re 16 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 5/12/2011. (tmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10-cv-396-RJC-DSC
PATRICK RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASUAL MALE RETAIL GROUP,
INC. and CASUAL MALE RETAIL
STORE, LLC,
Defendants.

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss1 (Doc. No. 8)
and accompanying memorandum (Doc. No. 9); Plaintiff’s Amended Response in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14); Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Responses in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No.15); and the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R) (Doc. No. 16) recommending denying as moot
without prejudice the motion to dismiss. There were no objections filed to the M&R.
The plaintiff was granted leave to file, and filed, an Amended Complaint in this case
(Doc. No. 18). It is well-settled that a timely filed amended pleading supersedes the original
pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. See Young
v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original
pleading of no effect); Colin v. Marconi Commerce Sys. Employees’ Retirement Plan, 335 F.
Supp. 2d 590, 614 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (defendants’ earlier motion for summary judgment as to one

1

Subsequently, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Casual Male Retail Group,
Inc. but maintained its action against Defendant Casual Male Retail Store, LLC.

count of first amended complaint rendered moot by filing of plaintiff’s second amended
complaint); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D.Md. 2002) (denying as moot motion to
dismiss original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint).
Thus, the filing of Plaintiff’s amended complaint renders the defendants’ pending motion to
dismiss as moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is
DENIED as moot.
Signed: May 12, 2011

2