Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [Doc. 60] be granted; and Plaintiff’ssecond motion to dismiss [Doc. 78] be found as moot.
On December 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant, allegingcopyright infringement. [Doc. 1.] Defendant filed a pro se answer on January 18, 2011[Doc. 7] and subsequently retained counsel and filed an amended answer andcounterclaims on February 25, 2011 [Doc. 22]. On March 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motionto dismiss, or alternatively strike, Defendant’s counterclaims. [Doc. 23.] The HonorableRichard M. Gergel referred this action to the undersigned for pretrial management onMarch 25, 2011. [Doc. 24.]On April 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint [Doc. 36], and Defendant fileda motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on April 19, 2011 [Doc. 37]. Defendant fileda second amended answer and counterclaims on June 23, 2011 [Doc. 53] and a motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on July 7, 2011 [Doc. 60]. On August 25, 2011, Plaintiff Because the second amended answer and counterclaims superseded the
amended answer and counterclaims to which Plaintiff filed its initial motion to dismiss, theCourt recommends finding as moot Plaintiff’s initial motion to dismiss [Doc. 23].
SeeYoung v. City of Mount Ranier
, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating that “anamended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect”(citation omitted));
Hall v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workersof Am., UAW
, 2011 WL 4014315, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2011) (citing
Colin v. Marconi Commerce Sys. Emps.’ Ret. Plan
, 335 F. Supp. 2d 590, 614 (M.D.N.C. 2004);
, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002)) (denying as moot the defendants’ motionsto dismiss because the second amended complaint rendered moot the defendants’pending motions to dismiss, which were related to the superseded complaint);
McCoy v.City of Columbia
, 2010 WL 3447476, at *1–2 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2010) (adopting themagistrate judge’s report and recommendation to the extent it recommended that themotion to dismiss be found as moot because the amended complaint superseded theoriginal complaint and rendered any attack upon it moot).2
2:10-cv-03075-RMG Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 93 Page 2 of 17