Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arnold v. Borough

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


December 18, 2006

RAYMOND E. ARNOLD, JR. AND SANDRA L. ARNOLD, PLAINTIFFS
v.
RED LION BOROUGH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of December, 2006, upon consideration of the motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. 20), and of the motions (Docs. 12, 16) to dismiss the original complaint, and it appearing that a responsive pleading has not been served, see FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) ("A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served . . . ."), and 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:

1. The motion the amend the complaint (Doc. 20) is GRANTED.

2. The motions to dismiss (Docs. 12, 16) the original complaint are DENIED as moot.

20061218

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.