Magnesita Refractories Company v. Tianjin New Century Refractories Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying defts' MTDs 29 & 30 as MOOT & w/out prejudice & directing defts to response to amended complaint in acc w/ FRCP. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/29/17. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MAGNESITA REFRACTORIES COMPANY, Plaintiff v. TIANJIN NEW CENTURY REFRACTORIES CO., LTD., YINGKOU NEW CENTURY REFRACTORIES LTD., NEW CENTURY REFRACTORY SOLUTIONS INC., and DONALD GRIFFIN, an individual doing business as Technical Consultant’s Laboratories, Defendants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1587 (Chief Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2017, upon consideration of defendants’ motions (Docs. 29, 20) to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) filed November 3 and November 13, 2017, respectively, and further upon consideration of plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 33) filed November 22, 2017, and the court noting that an amended pleading supersedes the original “in providing the blueprint for the future course of the lawsuit,” Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002); see also 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (3d ed. 2015), and the court thus finding that the amended complaint renders the original complaint a nullity, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motions (Docs. 29, 30) to dismiss the complaint (Doc. 1) are DENIED as moot and without prejudice. 2. Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint (Doc. 33) in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. /S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?