Directv, LLC v. Synmatix, L.L.C. ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DIRECTV, LLC, * Plaintiffs, * v. * Civil Action No. MJM-22-02817 SYNMATIX, L.L.C., et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM ORDER Currently pending is Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC’s Motion for Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction as to Defendants Tencomm LLC and Anzil Nadeem (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 44). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed its original Complaint on November 1, 2022, alleging that defendants Synmatix, L.L.C., Tencomm LLC, Syed Sami Ul Hassan, Syed Faisal Abbas, Anzil Nadeem, XYZ Companies 1-10, and John Does 1-10 perpetrated an unlawful scheme to defraud Plaintiff’s current and prospective customers, which resulted in damage to Plaintiff’s business relationships, trademarks, and finances. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff subsequently reached settlement agreements with defendants Synmatix, L.L.C., Syed Sami Ul Hassan, and Syed Faisal Abbas, which the Court approved. (ECF Nos. 56, 57). Defendants Tencomm LLC and Anzil Nadeem have not participated in this case. Upon Plaintiff’s request, the Clerk of the Court has entered their defaults, (ECF Nos. 23, 27), and issued notices of default to each of these defendants, (ECF Nos. 24, 28). On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion, requesting entry of default judgment and permanent injunction against Tencomm LLC and Anzil Nadeem. (ECF No. 44). Ten days later, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint naming a new defendant (Azhar Abbas a/k/a Azhar Ravian) but asserting the same claims stated in the original Complaint. By filing an amended complaint, DIRECTV “rendered [the] original complaint a nullity.” Fawzy v. Wauquiez Boats SNC, 873 F.3d 451, 453-455 (4th Cir. 2017) (“[A] properly filed amended complaint supersedes the original one and becomes the operative complaint in the case, it renders the original complaint of no effect.”) (internal citation omitted). When the Amended Complaint became the operative complaint in this case, any motions based upon the original Complaint were rendered moot. See Rice v. M-E-C Company, 2022 WL 20138734, at *2 (D.S.C., 2022) (“Plaintiff appears to seek default judgment on the basis of his initial complaint, which is improper as the amended complaint is now the operative pleading, and the prior complaint no longer serves any function in this case.”). Because Plaintiff filed its Motion before filing its Amended Complaint, the Motion must be denied as moot. See Santander Bank, NA v. Gaver, 2019 WL 1077386, at *5 (D. Md. 2019) (“[T]he filing of an amended complaint renders pending motions for default judgment moot[.]”); Kyles v. Wendy’s International, LLC, 2019 WL 3253404, at *6 (D. Md. 2019) (same). The dismissal shall be without prejudice to refiling based on the Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgement and Permanent Injunction as to Defendants Tencomm LLC and Anzil Nadeem (ECF No. 44) is DENIED as MOOT and WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is so ORDERED. June 26, 2024 /S/ Date Matthew J. Maddox United States District Judge