Simmons v. MasTec North America, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 29 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint on or before April 16, 2018. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint 16 is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/12/18. (mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-587-FDW-DCK
TRAVIS SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
MASTEC SERVICES COMPANY, INC.;
and MASTEC, INC.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File
Amended Complaint” (Document No. 29) filed April 11, 2018. 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 and the record, and noting consent of
Defendants’ counsel, the undersigned will grant the motion.
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 any 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. In addition, the
undersigned will direct that “Defendants’ Motion For Partial Dismissal Of Plaintiff’s Complaint”
(Document No. 16) filed on October 25, 2017, be denied as moot. Defendants may file a renewed
motion 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, 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
2

Complaint”); 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-266-FDW, 2007 WL 3224985 at
*4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2007).
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Amended
Complaint” (Document No. 29) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint on
or before April 16, 2018.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendants’ Motion For Partial Dismissal Of
Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Document No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 12, 2018

The “Administrative Procedures Governing Filing and Service by Electronic Means,” revised January 1,
2018, 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.”
1

3