LivetobeHappy, Inc. v. Murphy

Filing 9

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint; Plaintiff shall file its Amended Complaint within five days of this Order; and administratively denying Defendant's 4 Motion to Dismiss as moot without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 5/9/2022. (mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-00106-MOC-DSC
LIVETOBEHAPPY INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL P. MURPHY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss” (document #4)
and “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” (document #7).
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments to pleadings. Rule
15(a)(1) grants a party the right to “amend its pleading once as a matter of course,” if done within
twenty-one days after serving the pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or “if the pleading is one
to which a responsive pleading is required,” a party may amend once as a matter of course,
provided that it does so within “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)(B).
The Rule further provides that leave to amend shall be freely given “when justice so requires.” Id.
An extension of time to respond to a motion to dismiss extends the time to amend as a
matter of course. See Superior Performers Inc. v. Phelps, 2015 WL 13650060, *1 (M.D.N.C. May
15, 2015) quoting Hurd v. NDL, Inc., 2012 WL 642425, at *1 (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2012) (“[Plaintiff]
filed her amended complaint 31 days after the defendants filed their motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6). However, because [she] requested and was granted an extension of time to file her

Case 3:22-cv-00106-MOC-DSC Document 9 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2

response, the court will consider the amended complaint timely and therefore permitted as a matter
of course”); Jackson v. Merscorp Inc., 2013 WL 12190523, *1 (M.D.N.C May 20, 2013) (same).
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Leave to Amend within the extended time frame for
responding to Defendant’s Motion. See Text-Only Order entered May 2, 2022. Accordingly, the
amendment is as a matter of course.
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motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot.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 ORDERED that:
1.

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” (document #7) is

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its Amended Complaint within five days of this Order.
2.

Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss” (document #4) is administratively DENIED as

moot without prejudice.
2.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to

the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr..
SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 9, 2022

Case 3:22-cv-00106-MOC-DSC Document 9 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2