Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-1913
01-06-2012
RODNEY TYGER and SHAWN WADSWORTH, Plaintiffs v. PRECISION DRILLING CORP., et al., Defendants
(Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) filed by defendants Precision Drilling Company, LP and Precision Drilling Oilfield Services, Inc., on January 3, 2012, and upon further consideration of the amended complaint (Doc. 7) filed on January 3, 2012, and it appearing that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one (21) days after serving it, or within twenty-one (21) days after service by the opposing party of a motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A)-(B), and the court finding that an amended complaint renders the original complaint a legal nullity, see Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002) ("An amended complaint supercedes the original version in providing the blueprint for the future course of the lawsuit."); 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) ("Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case . . . ."), it is hereby ORDERED that:
Defendants assert that Precision Drilling Corp. is not a proper defendant in this action. Rather the appropriate defendant is Precision Drilling Company, LP. (Doc. 5, at 1 n.1).
1. Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The motion (Doc. 5) to dismiss the complaint is DENIED as moot without prejudice.
____________
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge