Newsome v. Barclays Bank Delaware et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying as moot Defendant Barclays' 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to the Motion to Dismiss. The parti es shall file a Certificate of Settlement Conference as directed by the"Standing Order Requiring An Initial Settlement Conference is Civil Cases Assigned to the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell." Signed by US Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 5/10/24. (mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-249-KDB-DCK
PAULA NEWSOME,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, and
JOSE L. PEREZ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant Barclays’ “Motion To
Dismiss Or In The Alternative To Compel Arbitration” (Document No. 6) filed March 8, 2024,
and Plaintiff’s “Motion For Extension Of Time To File Response To Motion To Dismiss…”
(Document No. 11) filed May 9, 2024. These motions have been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having
carefully considered the motions, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny
the motions 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).
DISCUSSION
The undersigned notes that Plaintiff timely-filed a “First Amended Complaint” (Document
No. 10) on May 9, 2024.
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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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).
Based on the record of this case and the foregoing legal authority, the undersigned finds
that the pending motions are now moot. Defendants shall file an Answer, or otherwise respond to
the “First Amended Complaint,” in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant Barclays’ “Motion To Dismiss Or In
The Alternative To Compel Arbitration” (Document No. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For Extension Of Time To File
Response To Motion To Dismiss…” (Document No. 11) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a Certificate of Settlement
Conference as directed by the “Standing Order Requiring An Initial Settlement Conference In
Civil Cases Assigned To The Honorable Kenneth D. Bell,” 5:19-MC-005-KDB, (Document No.
2) (W.D.N.C. July 16, 2019) prior to the filing of an Answer or other response.
2

SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 10, 2024

3