Opinion
CV 119-030
03-12-2020
BRITTANY LAMB, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD ROUNDTREE, Sheriff of Richmond County, and HOY DARLING, Deputy of the Richmond County Sheriff's Office, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff's motion to file an out-of-time brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 7). The Court DENIES AS MOOT both motions.
After Defendants removed the case to this Court from the Superior Court of Richmond County, they filed, pursuant Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss on March 4, 2019. (Doc. 4.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within twenty days after serving the original complaint or "21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b),(e), or (f)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Under Rule 81(c)(1), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "apply to a civil action after it is removed from a state court." Therefore, under Rule 15(a)(2), Plaintiff had twenty-one days from the date of service of the motion to dismiss to file an amended complaint as a matter of course. See Wilson v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 117-CV-04543-LMM-RGV, 2018 WL 4474639, at *3 (N.D. Ga. June 19, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4481964 (N.D. Ga. July 9, 2018). Plaintiff timely filed her amended complaint on March 25, 2019. (Doc. 6.)
Because the motion to dismiss was served on Plaintiff by mail, she had three additional days to file her amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); see also (Doc. 9, p. 1 (confirming Defendants' motion served by mail).)
"It is well-established that an amended complaint super[s]edes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect." Renal Treatment Ctrs.- Mid-Atl., Inc. v. Franklin Chevrolet-Cadillac-Pontiac-GMC, No. 608CV087, 2009 WL 995564, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 2009) (quoting In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) and citing Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (1982)); see also Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) ("An amended complaint supersedes an original complaint."). As the amended complaint is the operative pleading in this case, the motion to dismiss filed in response to the original complaint is denied as moot. See EJC6, LLC v. City of Johns Creek, No. 1:15-cv-779-WSD, 2016 WL 727206, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2016); see also Horton v. Reeves, No. CV 118-165, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2019) (denying as moot motion to dismiss original complaint where plaintiff filed an amended complaint). Likewise, the motion requesting permission to file an out-of-time response to an inapplicable motion is denied as moot.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this 12th day of March, 2020.
/s/_________
J. RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA