Hall et al v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying as moot 22 , 24 Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 6/21/2011. (tmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10-cv-418-RJC-DSC
CHARLES R. HALL, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW;
UAW LOCAL UNION 5285; and
DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH
AMERICA LLC,
Defendants.

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos.
22 and 24) and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation recommending
granting the motions (Doc. No. 36). Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 44), and Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. No. 45).
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and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot.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 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complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint).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 second amended complaint renders the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss that
are related to the superseded complaint as moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 22
and 24) are DENIED as moot.
Signed: June 21, 2011

2