Lonon et al v. Barnett & Company, Inc.
Filing
9
ORDER administratively denying as moot without prejudice 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 11/9/2011. (tmg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:11CV476-MOC-DSC
ROBERT C. LONON, Individually and
as Trustee, and ROBERT C. LONON
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BARNETT & COMPANY, INC. a/k/a
BARNETT & CO., INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendant Barnett & Company, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint,” Doc. 7, filed October 20, 2011 and Plaintiffs’ “Notice of
Intent to File Consent Motion and First Amended Complaint,” Doc. 8, filed November 3, 2011.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B).
It is well settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions
directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.
3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect); 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complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint).
Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Notice, Doc. 8, Defendant has consented to Plaintiffs’ filing a First
Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs will file a Consent Motion to File a First Amended Complaint
with a copy of the First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A on or before November 10, 2011.
Accordingly, “Defendant Barnett & Company, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified
Complaint,” Doc. 7, is administratively DENIED as moot without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 9, 2011
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?