The County Commission of McDowell County v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying the 31 MOTION to strike and for ruling on the pending motions to dismiss; denying as moot the 10 11 MOTIONS to dismiss the original complaint filed by ABDC and Cardinal Health; and denying as moot McKesson Corporation's 22 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/26/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
THE COUNTY COMMISSION OF
MCDOWELL COUNTY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-00946

MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before this court is a “Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Untimely Amended Complaint and for Ruling on Pending Motions to
Dismiss” filed by defendants Cardinal Health 110, LLC (“Cardinal
Health”) and AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation (“ABDC”).
No. 31).

(ECF

In denying plaintiff’s motion to stay all deadlines in

the case pending a ruling on a motion to remand that had not yet
been filed, the court ordered that plaintiff had seven (7) days
from entry of its Order “to respond to the pending motions to
dismiss.”

(ECF No. 21).

Instead of filing responses to the

pending motions to dismiss and motion for judgment on the
pleadings, plaintiff instead filed the amended complaint at issue
here.

According to defendants, the time for filing an amended

pleading as a matter of course had passed and plaintiff could
only amend its complaint with leave of the court.
34, and 35).

(ECF Nos. 31,

Defendants also contend that the court’s order

extending the deadline for responding to the motions to dismiss

did not extend the deadline for filing an amended complaint.

See

id.
Having fully considered the parties’ arguments, the court
DENIES the motion to strike the amended complaint.

While

defendants’ position is not without merit, the court is persuaded
by the authorities cited in plaintiff’s response that plaintiff’s
filing of an amended complaint fell within the scope of the
court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of February 17, 2017.

See,

e.g., Alliance Solutions, Inc. v. Quest Software, Inc., Civil
Action No. ELH-11-2115, 2012 WL 692883, *8 (D. Md. Mar. 1, 2012)
(“[A]s the plain text of Rule 15(a)(1) provides, an amended
complaint is a permissible response to a Rule 12(b) motion. . . .
In my view, a compelling argument can be made that consent to an
extension of time to respond to a Rule 12(b) motion, and an order
to the same effect, implicitly contemplate an extension of the
time to file an amended pleading under Rule 15(a)(1).”).
Furthermore, defendants have already responded to the amended
complaint by filing motions to dismiss and those motions are ripe
for decision.

For these reasons, the motion to strike and for

ruling on the pending motions to dismiss is DENIED.
“As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily
supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”
Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001).
“It is well settled that a timely-filed amended pleading

2

supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at
superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.”

Catlin Specialty

Ins. Co. v. Jafrum International, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV607-RJC-DCK, 2015 WL 10434683, *3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2015)
(recommending that district court deny as moot motion for
judgment on the pleadings where leave to file amended complaint
had been granted and amended complaint superseded earlier
complaint); see also Sennott v. Adams, C/A No. 6:13-cv-02813-GRA,
2014 WL 2434745, *3 (D.S.C. May 29, 2014) (“Thus, a defendant’s
previous motion to dismiss is rendered moot when a plaintiff
files an amended complaint.”).

Accordingly, the motions to

dismiss the original complaint filed by ABDC and Cardinal Health
(ECF Nos. 10 and 12) are DENIED as moot.

Likewise, McKesson

Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 22)
is also DENIED as moot.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to all counsel of record and unrepresented
parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2017.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3