Opinion
CV 119-012
10-21-2019
JOHN W. LEE, Plaintiff, v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants Augusta-Richmond County and Mayor Hardy Davis's ("Augusta Defendants") motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 44) and Plaintiff's objection, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), to United States Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps's July 11, 2019 Order (Doc. 52) granting in part the Augusta Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss (Doc. 54).
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Augusta Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on June 4, 2019. (Doc. 44.) Shortly thereafter, on July 8, 2019, Defendants moved to stay discovery pending the Court's resolution of the Augusta Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Doc 50.) Magistrate Judge Epps granted the Augusta Defendants' motion to stay discovery in part. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff then filed the present objection to Magistrate Judge Epps's Order on July 22, 2019. (Doc. 54.)
The next day, Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to file his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 55), which the Court granted (Doc. 56). Plaintiff has since filed his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 58), and the Augusta Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 59). Again, the Augusta Defendants moved to stay discovery pending the Court's resolution of their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 60), and Magistrate Judge Epps granted that motion (Doc. 84).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Augusta Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint moots the Augusta Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. "It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes 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)) (citing Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982)); accord Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) ("An amended complaint supersedes an original complaint."). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint supersedes his First Amended Complaint. Moreover, the Augusta Defendants filed a separate motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 59.) Accordingly, the Augusta Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is moot.
B. Objection to Magistrate Order
Plaintiff moved to amend his First Amended Complaint the day after objecting to Magistrate Judge Epps's imposition of the first discovery stay. In moving to amend, Plaintiff recognized the filing of his Second Amended Complaint could moot the Augusta Defendants' motion to dismiss his First Amended Complaint. (Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to Amend, Doc. 55, at 1.) Of course, mooting the Augusta Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff' First Amended Complaint would resolve that motion, lift the stay that is the subject of Plaintiff's objection, and render the present objection meaningless. Moreover, the Augusta Defendants moved to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, which Magistrate Judge Epps granted. Because the Augusta Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is resolved herein and Magistrate Judge Epps's second stay of discovery controls, Plaintiff's objection to the first discovery stay is moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Augusta Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 44) is DENIED AS MOOT and Plaintiff's objection to Magistrate Judge Epps's July 11, 2019 Order (Doc. 54) is OVERRULED AS MOOT.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this 21ST day of October, 2019.
/s/_________
J. RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA