United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division
JOHN H. UNDERHILL, Plaintiff,
SHERI ROYER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT, REJECTING STIPULATION AS MOOT, AND CANCELLING HEARING
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On December 17, 2014, Plaintiff John H. Underhill filed a complaint against Defendants, alleging violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights and seeking a declaratory judgment. On February 2, 2015, Defendants Scott Pavlich and Sheri Royer each filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. ECF Nos. 14, 15. The Court therefore set the motions to dismiss for hearing on April 15, 2015.
On February 23, 2015, Underhill filed a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 19. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) permits a party to amend a pleading as a matter of course “21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .” Having filed an amended complaint as a matter of course, Underhill’s amended complaint supersedes the original complaint for all purposes. Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 410 (6th Cir. 2014). “The filing of the amended complaint ‘render[s] the original complaint null and void.” Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (quoting Vadas v. United States, 527 F.3d 16, 22 n.4 (2d Cir. 2007)).
Because the original complaint has been superseded, there is no longer a live dispute about the merits of the claims asserted in it. See Cedar View, Ltd. v. Colpetzer, 2006 WL 456482, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2006) (the “earlier motion to dismiss . . . and motion for judgment on the pleadings . . . are denied as moot, as they refer to a version of the complaint that has since been replaced . . . .”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant Scott Pavlich’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant Sheri Royer’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for Underhill to respond to the ...