Brik et al v. Maricopa, County of et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying as moot 13 Motion to Dismiss Party. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/8/2009.(NVO)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pinkhas and Isabella Brik, husband and ) ) wife, and on behalf of Igor Brik, a ) protected adult, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Maricopa County; Betty Adams; Joseph ) and Ava Arpaio; City of Phoenix; Jack ) and Connie Harris; Shawn and Jane Doe ) ) Henry; and Craig and Jane Doe Scott, ) ) Defendants. )

No. CV-09-1758-PHX-DGC ORDER

After the removal of this action (Dkt. #1), Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (Dkt. #10). Defendant Maricopa County filed an answer and motion to dismiss. Dkt. ##13, 14. Plaintiffs then sought leave to file a second amended complaint in order to address the issues raised by the motion to dismiss. Dkt. #18. The Court granted the motion to amend as unopposed. Dkt. #24. Because a second amended complaint has been filed (Dkt. #26), the Court will deny as moot the County's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. IT IS ORDERED that Maricopa County's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (Dkt. ##13, 14) is denied as moot. DATED this 8th day of December, 2009.