UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
July 9, 2009
PAUL MESEROLE, BRIAN MILLER, LAWRENCE MONROE, RHONDA PLOUBIS, ALAN STREHOLSKI, JUANITA SEIDL AND WILLIAM MEAD, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., SONG ELECTRONICS, INC., AND SONY CORP., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert P. Patterson, Jr., U.S.D.J.
OPINION AND ORDER
In a class action complaint filed on October 20, 2008, and amended on December 5, 2008 (the "Complaint"), Plaintiffs Paul Meserole, Brian Miller, Lawrence Monroe, Rhonda Ploubis, Alan Streholski, Juanita Seidl and William Mead (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), commenced this action against Defendants Sony Corporation of America, Inc., Sony Electronics, Inc., and Sony Corporation (collectively referred to as "Sony" or "Defendants"), alleging state and federal breach of warranty and consumer protection law claims related to an inherent defect in the "Optical Block" present in Sony Grand WEGA SXRD Rear Projection HDTV Televisions.*fn1
On January 16, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ("First Motion to Dismiss"), which this Court granted on May 18, 2009. See Meserole v. Sony Corporation of America, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42772 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). In the opinion, this Court granted Plaintiffs "thirty days leave to replead their claims." Id. at *34. On June 3, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of dismissal, and on June 17, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.*fn2 Defendants filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on June 22, 2009, and on July 2, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is denied as moot. By filing a Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have supplanted the Complaint, thereby rendering any motion for reconsideration advisory.*fn3 See, e.g., Mintz v. Baron, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22636, 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding Plaintiffs' amended complaint rendered moot a motion for reconsideration); Powell v. Smith, 2009 WL 1810770, 1 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (denying a motion for reconsideration as moot subsequent to filing of amended complaint). Indeed, if this Court were to grant Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the effect would be that Plaintiffs would have two complaints pending in the same action. This simply cannot be. See International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 669 (2d Cir. 1977) (citing Miller v. American Export Lines, 313 F.2d 218 (2d Cir. 1963) ("[i]t is well established that an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect"); Diesel Props RSL v. Greystone Bus, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92988, *16 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (plaintiff's amended pleadings supersede plaintiff's original pleadings); see also Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir. 1999) ("Because a plaintiff's new complaint wipes away prior pleadings, the amended complaint opens the door for defendants to raise new and previously unmentioned affirmative defenses.")
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED as moot. To the extent that any of the legal issues raised by the parties in their memoranda of law related to the motion for reconsideration arise in connection with Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the parties are free to incorporate such arguments into their briefs in support or opposition to the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.