Robert Jaffee et al v. Rudolph Carryl et al

Filing 90

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 86 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court DENIES AS MOOT and without prejudice Defendant Aus Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 86.) Defendant Au may refile his motion as appropriate in response to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12
13

ROBERT JAFFEE and BARBARA
JAFFEE,
Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case № 2:15-CV-00113-ODW (ASx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
[86]

v.

16
17

RUDOLPH CARRYL aka RUDY
CARRYL, et al.

18
19

Defendants.

20

On June 7, 2016, Defendant Thomas Au moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First

21

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 86.) On June 27, 2016, the Court granted in part and

22

denied in part Defendants Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. and Freedom Investments, Inc.’s

23

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 89.) The Court

24

granted Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days. (Id.)

25

“[W]hen an amended complaint is filed while a motion to dismiss is pending, it

26

generally moots the motion to dismiss.” Williamson v. Sacramento Mortgage, Inc.,

27

No. CIV. S-10-2600 KJM, 2011 WL 4591098, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2011). Thus,

28

the Court DENIES AS MOOT and without prejudice Defendant Au’s Motion to

1

Dismiss. (ECF No. 86.) Defendant Au may refile his motion as appropriate in

2

response to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

June 27, 2016

7
8
9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2