Brandon et al v. Liddy et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying on grounds of mootness 11 Armfields and Maricopa County's Motion to Strike allegations in plaintiff's [sic] pleadings; denying on grounds of mootness 14 Liddys' Motion to Strike; denying on grounds of mootness 15 Liddys' Motion to Dismiss; denying on grounds of mootness 16 Armfields and Maricopa County's Motion to Amend their motion to dismiss; and denying on grounds of mootness 17 Armfields and Maricopa County's Amended Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 6/8/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Tom Liddy; Stacy Liddy; Rocky Armfield;)
Chris Armfield; Maricopa County; Sandi)
)
Wilson; Paul Wilson; John Does I-V,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Maria Brandon; Jerry Brandon,

CV 12-00788-PHX-FJM
ORDER

16
17
We have before us defendants Chris and Rocky Armfield ("the Armfields") and
18
Maricopa County's motion to strike allegations under Rule 12(f) (doc. 11) and plaintiffs'
19
response (doc. 20). We also have before us defendants Tom and Stacy Liddy's ("the Liddys")
20
motion to strike paragraphs in plaintiffs' complaint (doc. 14). Next, we have the Liddys'
21
motion to dismiss counts V, VI, and VIII (doc. 15). In addition, we have the Armfields and
22
Maricopa County's motion to amend their motion to dismiss (doc. 16), as well as their
23
amended motion to dismiss counts II, III, V, VI, and VIII (doc. 17), and plaintiffs' response
24
(doc. 21).
25
This action arises from the termination of Maria Brandon's employment. The first
26
Rule 12, Fed. R. Civ. P. motion in this action was filed on May 18, 2012 (doc. 11). Plaintiffs
27
filed their first amended complaint on June 7, 2012 (doc. 22).
28

1

A party may amend her pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one days

2

after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), 12(e), or 12(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). An

3

amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

4

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Because plaintiffs' amendment was timely, this action is now

5

proceeding under the first amended complaint and all pending motions are rendered moot.

6

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Armfields and Maricopa County's

7

motion to strike allegations in plaintiff's [sic] pleadings (doc. 11). IT IS ORDERED

8

DENYING the Liddys' motion to strike (doc. 14). IT IS ORDERED DENYING the

9

Liddys' motion to dismiss (doc. 15). IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Armfields and

10

Maricopa County's motion to amend their motion to dismiss (doc. 16). IT IS ORDERED

11

DENYING the Armfields and Maricopa County's amended motion to dismiss (doc. 17). All

12

motions are denied on grounds of mootness.

13

DATED this 8th day of June, 2012.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-