Miller v. Union County Public Schools et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Amend/Correct. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Union County Board Of Education 's 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 2/6/17. (mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-666-FDW-DCK
TARYN MILLER,

Plaintiff,
v.
UNION COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; and
JANICE BURNS,
Defendants.

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend”
(Document No. 15) filed February 3, 2017. This motion has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having
carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will grant
the motion to amend, and order that the pending motions to dismiss be denied as moot.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applies to the amendment of pleadings and allows a
party to amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving, or “if the pleading is one
to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21
days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1). Rule 15 further provides:
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the
court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
Under Rule 15, a “motion to amend should be denied only where it would be prejudicial,
there has been bad faith, or the amendment would be futile.” Nourison Rug Corporation v.
Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276-77
(4th Cir. 2001)); see also, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, “the grant or
denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court.” Pittston Co. v.
U.S., 199 F.3d 694, 705 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
DISCUSSION
The undersigned is not persuaded there is sufficient evidence of prejudice, bad faith, or
futility to outweigh the policy favoring granting leave to amend; therefore, the undersigned will
allow Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which supersedes the original Complaint.
Furthermore, the undersigned will direct that the “Union County Board Of Education’s Motion To
Dismiss” (Document No. 7) and “Defendant Janice Burns’ Motion To Dismiss” (Document No.
9) be denied as moot. This dismissal is without prejudice to Defendants filing motion(s) to dismiss
the Amended Complaint, if appropriate.
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. Young v. City of Mount
Ranier, 238 F. 3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule ... is that an amended pleading
supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.”); see also, 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”); Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp. 2d 391, 397
(D.Md. 2002) (quoting 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal

2

Practice and Procedure § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (“A pleading that has been amended ... supersedes
the pleading it modifies .... Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no
longer performs any function in the case.”)); Brown v. Sikora and Associates, Inc., 311 Fed.Appx.
568, 572 (4th Cir. Apr. 16, 2008); and Atlantic Skanska, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 3:07-CV-266FDW, 2007 WL 3224985 at *4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2007).
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend” (Document No.
15) is GRANTED. 1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Union County Board Of Education’s Motion To
Dismiss” (Document No. 7) and “Defendant Janice Burns’ Motion To Dismiss” (Document No.
9) are DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
.

Signed: February 6, 2017

1

The Administrative Procedures Governing Filing and Service by Electronic Means, revised January 1,
2012, at Part II, Section A, Paragraph 8, provide that: “If filing a document requires leave of the Court,
such as an amended complaint, the attorney shall attach the proposed document as an exhibit to the motion
according to the procedures in IV. If the Court grants the motion, the filer will be responsible for
electronically filing the document on the case docket.”

3