Sanders et al v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

Filing 14

ORDER granting Plaintiff's for leave to amend their Complaint to allege that the FPA and FERC License define the applicable standard of care; Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint within five days of this Order; and administratively denying 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 10/14/2020. (mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00215-RJC-DSC
TERRIE SANDERS ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS LLC,
FORMERLY DUKE ENERGY
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint,” Doc. 8, filed June 17, 2020 and the parties’
briefs and exhibits. Docs. 9, 12, and 13. In Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s “Memorandum of
Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint,” Plaintiffs
request leave to amend their Complaint to allege that the Federal Power Act and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission License define the applicable standard of care. See Doc. # 12 at pp. 2021. For the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their Complaint will be
granted.
The Fourth Circuit has held that leave to amend a pleading should be granted unless (1)
“the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party,” (2) “the moving party has acted in
bad faith,” or (3) “the amendment would be futile.” Equal Rights Ctr. V. Niles Bolton Assocs.,
602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010).

Defendant opposes Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the

Complaint, arguing that such amendment would be futile. The Court disagrees.

Case 3:20-cv-00215-RJC-DSC Document 14 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 2

Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their Complaint to allege that the FPA and FERC
License define the applicable standard of care is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their Amended
Complaint within five days of this Order.
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motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot.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).
IT IS THEREFORE FURTHER ORDERED that “Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint,” Doc. 8, is administratively DENIED
as moot without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to the
Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr..
SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 14, 2020

Case 3:20-cv-00215-RJC-DSC Document 14 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 2