Butler v. New American Funding

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARYANN BUTLER, 	: 	Civil No. 1:25-CV-690
:
Plaintiff 	:
: 	(Judge Neary)
v. 	:
:
NEW AMERICAN FUNDING, LLC, 	:
et al., 	: 	(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The background of this order is as follows:
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se, in this case, and the operative pleading is the
plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 47), a document which appears to have been
prepared and filed by a non-party and non-attorney. Citing this and other alleged
shortcomings in this pleading, the defendants then filed various motions to dismiss or
strike the pro se complaint. (Docs, 60, 61). In response, Butler has now moved to
further amend her complaint in ways which appear to narrow and clarify her claims.
(Doc. 118). The defendants have not responded to this motion.
We will permit the filing of this amended complaint since Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs amendment of pleadings strongly
Case 1:25-cv-00690-KMN-MCC Document 122 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
favors amendment of pleadings and provides that such leave to amend should be
liberally granted “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. 	The plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 118) is GRANTED and the
proposed amended complaint, (Doc. 118-1), will be lodged by the clerk as the second
amended complaint in this matter.
2. 	We believe that this development has substantive significance for the
parties with respect to the pending motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the
defendants since, as a matter of law, an amended complaint takes the place of any
prior complaint, 	effectively 	invalidating 	the prior 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 caseY.”). Therefore, since the
amended complaint is now a legal nullity the defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike
the prior complaint, (Docs 60, 61), are DISMISSED as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-00690-KMN-MCC Document 122 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	However, this leave to file an amended complaint is granted without
prejudice to the assertion of any defenses or dispositive motions that the defendants
may believe are appropriate with respect to the second amended complaint.
SO ORDERED, this 21 st day of January 2026.
/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00690-KMN-MCC Document 122 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3