Seldon v. Magedson et al

Filing 12

ORDER that the 6 Motion to Quash Service is denied as moot. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/29/2013.(LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Phillip Seldon,

No. CV-13-0072 PHX DGC
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Edward Magedson a/k/a Ed Magedson; et
al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On January 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court. Doc. 1. On

16

February 4, 2013, Plaintiff served a complaint on Defendant Xcentric Ventures. Doc. 5.

17

Defendant thereupon filed a motion to quash service of process. Doc. 6. In its motion,

18

Defendant argued that the served complaint was different from the filed complaint. Id.

19

Specifically, the served complaint included a request for a jury trial, while the filed

20

complaint did not, and the paragraph numbering for the complaints was different. Doc. 9

21

at 1. Since then, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. 11) and Defendant now

22

confirms that Plaintiff appropriately served the amended complaint. See Doc. 9 at 2.

23

Because Defendant has been appropriately served with the amended complaint, its

24

motion to quash service of the original complaint (Doc. 6) is denied as moot.

25
26
27
28

Dated this 29th day of March, 2013.