Mountain Island Day Community Charter School et al v. Inspire Performing Arts Company, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-779-FDW-DCK
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants May And Lewis’s Partial
Motion To Dismiss...” (Document No. 27) filed October 28, 2024. 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.
Plaintiff filed a “First Amended Complaint” (Document No. 39) on November 12, 2024,
which supersedes the original Complaint (Document No. 1). Therefore, the undersigned will direct
that “Defendants May And Lewis’s Partial Motion To Dismiss...” (Document No. 27) be denied
as moot.
MOUNTAIN ISLAND DAY COMMUNITY
CHARTER SCHOOL, et al.,
)
)
) ORDER
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, )
)
v. )
)
INSPIRE PERFORMING ARTS COMPANY,
LLC, ET AL.,
)
)
)
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs/Third-
Party Plaintiffs,
v.
JACKSON DAY SCHOOL BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case 3:24-cv-00779-KDB-DCK Document 45 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 2

2
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that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.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).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendants May And Lewis’s Partial Motion To
Dismiss...” (Document No. 27) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 25, 2024
Case 3:24-cv-00779-KDB-DCK Document 45 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 2