Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Snipes et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying as moot 21 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaims. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 9/15/22. (mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:22-CV-261-RJC-DCK
VANGUARD GROUP, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MATTHEW PHILIP SNIPES, and TOPSAIL )
WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss
Defendant’s Counterclaims” (Document No. 21) filed August 18, 2022. 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 direct that the pending motion 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).

Case 3:22-cv-00261-RJC-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2

DISCUSSION
In this case, Defendants timely filed an “…Answer and Defenses To First Amended
Complaint & Amended Counterclaims” (Document No. 29) on September 8, 2022. As such, the
Court finds that “Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims” (Document No. 21)
should be denied as moot.
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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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
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).
To the extent Plaintiff contends Defendants’ Amended Counterclaims (Document No. 29)
are deficient, this Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a renewed motion to dismiss.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss Defendant’s
Counterclaims” (Document No. 21) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Signed: September 15, 2022

2
Case 3:22-cv-00261-RJC-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2