Ward v. Figure Lending, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:24-CV-00533-FDW-DCK
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Extension of Time
to Respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 25.) On August 5, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 20.) On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.
(Doc. No. 24.) Since Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff and Defendant jointly ask the
Court to dismiss Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as moot. (Doc. No. 25, p. 1–3.) The parties also
jointly ask for an extension for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Id.) “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motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.” Ledford v. Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, No. 1:20-cv-005-MR-DCK, 2020 WL 1042235, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2020).
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 20), is DENIED as MOOT, and
Plaintiff’s Consent Motion, (Doc. No. 25), is GRANTED. Defendant shall have through and
including September 23, 2024, to respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LEE WARD, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
FIGURE LENDING, LLC, )
)
)
Defendant. )
)
Signed: September 11, 2024
Case 3:24-cv-00533-MEO-DCK Document 28 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 1