Opinion
Civil Action 7:23-CV-6352-TMC-KFM
01-12-2024
Horace L. McCollin, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Magna International, Inc. dba Magna Seating of South Carolina, Defendant.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kevin F. McDonald United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on the defendant's motion to strike (doc. 6). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.), all pretrial matters in employment discrimination cases are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for consideration.
On December 7, 2023, the defendant removed this case from state court based on federal question and diversity jurisdiction (doc. 1). In his original complaint, the plaintiff alleged two causes of action: 1) race discrimination/retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and 2) interference with prospective contractual relations/advantageous business relations (doc. 1-1). On December 14, 2023, the defendant filed the instant motion to strike the plaintiff's discrimination claim and paragraphs 3 through 7 of the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) (doc. 6). In its accompanying memorandum, the defendant notes that in a previous lawsuit against the defendant in 2019 in which the plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation, the parties resolved the lawsuit via a binding settlement agreement that released the defendant from “any and all claims, known and unknown, asserted and un-asserted, as of the date of the execution of [the] Settlement Agreement, including . . . Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [and] Sections 1981 through 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code” (doc. 6-1 at 1). The defendant argues that the racial discrimination claim and the allegations in paragraphs 3 through 7 of the complaint should be stricken as the plaintiff released the defendant from all claims related to these allegations (id. at 3-5). The plaintiff's response to the motion to strike was due by December 28, 2023.
The plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to the motion to strike. Rather, on December 15, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint (doc. 9), and on December 29, 2023, the defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint (doc. 12). The amended complaint does not include the allegations that were contained in paragraphs 3 through 7 of the original complaint, and it also does not include a cause of action for racial discrimination (see doc. 9).
A timely filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (“As a general rule, 'an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.'” (quoting Crysen/Montenay Energy Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 226 F.3d 160, 162 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2011) (“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 case . . . .”). As a result, motions directed at the superseded pleading generally are to be denied as moot. See, e.g., Hall v. Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW, No. 3:10-cv-418-RJC-DSC, 2011 WL 4014315, at *1 (W.D. N.C. June 21, 2011) (“It is well-settled that a timely filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot.”) (citations omitted); McCoy v. City of Columbia, C. A. No. 3:10-132-JFA-JRM, 2010 WL 3447476, at *1-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2010) (adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to the extent it recommended that the motion to dismiss be found as moot because the amended complaint superseded the original complaint and rendered any attack upon it moot).
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the defendant's motion to strike (doc. 6), which is directed at the original complaint, be denied as moot.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the following page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 250 East North Street, Suite 2300 Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).