IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMANDA NORTHRUP and )

PATRICK DUNN, )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00258-N

)

PHOENIX WEST II, LLC, )

PHOENIX WEST II OWNERS )

ASSOCIATION, INC., and )

BRETT/ROBINSON GULF )

CORPORATION, )

Defendants. )

ORDER

The Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint (Doc. 33) against all 

Defendants. The amended pleading, filed and served July 30, 2015, is timely and 

properly filed without leave of court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

15(a)(1)(B) (permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint “once as a matter of 

course within ... 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after 

service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier”).1 

“As a general matter, ‘[a]n amended pleading supersedes the former pleading; 

the original pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the 

pleader's averments against his adversary.’ ” Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. 

Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Dresdner Bank 

AG, Dresdner Bank AG in Hamburg v. M/V OLYMPIA VOYAGER, 463 F.3d 1210, 

1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted)). See also, e.g., Fritz v. 

 1 Defendants Phoenix West II, LLC and Brett/Robinson Gulf Corporation filed and served 

Rule 12(b) motions on July 9, 2015. (Docs. 11, 12). Defendant Phoenix West Owners 

Association, Inc. filed a Rule 12(b) motion on July 23, 2015. (Doc. 21).

Case 1:15-cv-00258-KD-N Document 34 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982) 

(“Under the Federal Rules, an amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint.”). Thus, it is ORDERED that the Defendants’ motions to dismiss the 

initial complaint (Docs. 11, 12, 21) are MOOT.2 

DONE and ORDERED this the 31st day of July 2015.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 2 This case has been randomly assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 

for all purposes, including trial. (See Docs. 5, 20). Inasmuch as no party, to date, has 

returned to the Clerk of Court a Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge 

(see Doc. 5 (“The parties have the right to have this action reassigned to a United States 

District Judge for trial and disposition. Any party may request reassignment by emailing 

the attached Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge to 

sandra_rey@alsd.uscourts.gov. Do not electronically file the document.”)), there 

presently exists implicit consent to the undersigned conducting all proceedings in this case. 

See Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 123 S. Ct. 1696, 1703, 155 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2003) (“We 

think the better rule is to accept implied consent where, as here, the litigant or counsel was 

made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it, and still voluntarily appeared 

to try the case before the Magistrate Judge. Inferring consent in these circumstances thus 

checks the risk of gamesmanship by depriving parties of the luxury of waiting for the 

outcome before denying the magistrate judge’s authority. Judicial efficiency is served; the 

Article III right is substantially honored.”).

Case 1:15-cv-00258-KD-N Document 34 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 2