Rynone Manufacturing Corp. v. Sulzbach

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 5 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Scott Sulzbach, without prejudice to the defendants renewing these motions as to the second amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on April 24, 2013. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RYNONE MANUFACTURING CORP., :
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
SCOTT SULZBACH,
:
:
Defendant.
:

Civil No. 4:13-CV-671

(Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The background of this order is as follows:
The plaintiff commenced this action by a complaint on March 14, 2013. (Doc.
1.) The defendant moved to dismiss this complaint on April 12, 2013, (Doc. 5.), and
the plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint on April 23, 2013. (Doc. 7.) Rule
15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendment of pleadings,
strongly favors amendment of pleadings at the outset of litigation, and provides in
pertinent part as follows:
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading
once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading
1

In this case the plaintiff timely amended this complaint within 21 days after service
of the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to amend this complaint
as a matter of course and all further proceedings shall be based upon this amended
complaint.
We believe that this development has substantive significance for the parties
since, as a matter of law, an amended complaint takes the place of the original
complaint, effectively invalidating the original complaint. Crysen/Montenay Energy
Co. v. Shell Oil Co. (In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co.), 226 F.3d 160, 162 (2d Cir.
2000) ("[A]n amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of
no legal effect"); see 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) ("A pleading that has been
amended … supersedes the pleading it modifies…. Once an amended pleading is
interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case….").
Since the complaint in this case has been amended, the original complaint is now a
nullity, and any motion to dismiss challenging a count contained in that original
complaint is now moot. Therefore, we will DISMISS the pending motion to dismiss
the plaintiff’s first complaint (Doc. 5.) as moot, but without prejudice to the
defendants renewing these motions as to the second amended complaint.

2

SO ORDERED, this 24th day of April 2013.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

3