Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    )
    SHERYL WULTZ, et al.,                              )
    )
    Plaintiffs,                                 )
    )
    v.                                  )                            1:08-cv-1460-RCL
    )
    ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al.,                  )
    )
    Defendants.                                 )
    )
    ORDER DENYING THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT
    BANK OF CHINA LIMITED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
    The plaintiffs commenced this action on August 22, 2008 by filing their Complaint [1]
    against several defendants, including Bank of China, Ltd. (“BOC”). Soon thereafter, BOC filed
    a motion to dismiss that complaint, styled Motion [3] of Defendant Bank of China Limited to
    Dismiss the Complaint, upon which the Court now rules. The plaintiffs have since filed their
    First Amended Complaint [12], which BOC has also moved to dismiss in Defendant Bank of
    China Limited’s Motion [15] to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
    By filing an amended complaint, the plaintiffs rendered their original complaint a nullity.
    See 6 CHARLES ALLEN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, 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 . . . .”). A motion to dismiss a complaint
    that has been subsequently amended is therefore moot. See, e.g., Myvett v. Williams, 
    638 F. Supp. 2d 59
    , 62 n.1 (D.D.C. 2009) (“Because the plaintiff filed an amended complaint after the
    defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint, the court denies as moot the defendants’
    motion to dismiss the original complaint.”); P&V Enterprises v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
    
    466 F. Supp. 2d 134
    , 135 n.1 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing Bancoult v. McNamara, 
    214 F.R.D. 5
    , 13
    (D.D.C. 2003) (“[T]he filing of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint mooted the defendants’
    motion to dismiss the original complaint . . . .)). BOC’s motion to dismiss must therefore be
    denied as moot.
    Upon consideration of the Motion of Defendant Bank of China Limited to Dismiss the
    Complaint and procedural developments in this case, it is hereby
    ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
    /s/
    Royce C. Lamberth
    Chief Judge
    United States District Court
    for the District of Columbia
    December 14, 2009
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2008-1460

Judges: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth

Filed Date: 12/14/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016