Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Lottery should be included in the Deferred Payment Component — the exact opposite position it now takes. (Def.’s SDF ¶ 161.) While the filing of an amended complaint typically renders the original complaint “dead letter,” Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 91 (1st Cir.2008), under “certain circumstances,” the statements made in the superseded complaint “may be party admissions, usable as such, despite the subsequent amendment of the complaint.” InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 144-45 (1st Cir.2003). These “certain circumstances” typically involve situations similar to those here, where a party’s theory of the case changes in its amendment, as opposed to situations where its theory is merely amplified through amendment. Wiseman v. Reposa, 463 F.2d 226, 227 (1st Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>); Raulie v. United States, 400 F.2d 487, 526 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations (B) holding original complaint was admission where it alleged an accident occurred on a different date than the amended complaint (C) holding that while the excerpt from the original complaint was competent as evidence as a pleading it was superseded by the amended complaint (D) holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint (E) holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct  at issue in this action
Output (English): holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint