Guzman v. Gruma Corporation et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 3/4/15 ORDERING that defendants' 9 , 10 Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as moot. (Kastilahn, A)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

OSCAR GUZMAN,

5
6
7
8

No. 1:15-cv-00159-GEB-SKO

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT

GRUMA CORP., CHUCK DAWSON,
and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,

9

Defendants.

10
Defendants

11

filed

claims

a

to

of

harassment

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) on February 4,

15

2015. (ECF No. 9.) On that same day, Defendants filed another

16

motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No.

17

10.) However, Plaintiff filed a timely First Amended Complaint on

18

February 25, 2015, (ECF No. 22), which is now the operative

19

pleading. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co.,

20

Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating “an amended

21

pleading

22

dismissal motions do not address the operative pleading, they are

23

denied as moot.

24

Dated:

the

Defendant

original.”).

March 4, 2015

25
26
27
28
1

Gruma

and

all

13

supersedes

Dawson

dismiss

Plaintiff’s

against

Chuck

motion

12

claims

against

joint

Plaintiff’s

Corporation

Since

the

under

referenced