McFarland v. City of Clovis et al
Filing
14
ORDER Vacating Hearing and Order on 6 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/2/2015. (IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The December 14, 2015, hearing on Defendants' motion is VACATED; 2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED as MOOT; and 3. Defendants may file an answer or other responsive motion or pleading to the First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of service of this order.)(Gaumnitz, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
LYLE S. McFARLAND,
10
11
12
13
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-01530-AWI-SMS
Plaintiff
ORDER VACATING HEARING AND
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
CITY OF CLOVIS, et al.,
(Doc. No. 6)
Defendants
14
15
16
Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The motion is set to
17
be heard on December 14, 2015. The motion to dismiss was filed on November 5, 2015.
18
However, on November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amended pleadings. In pertinent part, Rule
20
15(a) reads: “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . ., if the
21
pleading is one to which a response pleading is required, 21 days after service of the responsive
22
pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
23
Amendments made within the time limits of Rule 15(a)(1) as a matter of course do not require
24
leave of court. See Reeves v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 885 F.Supp.2d 384, 388 n.4 (D. D.C. 2012);
25
cf. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly filed
26
“amended complaint supersedes the original [complaint], the latter being treated thereafter as non-
27
existent.” Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, --- F.3d ---, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20277, *15
28
(9th Cir. 2015); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967).
1
Here, Plaintiff's amended complaint is timely under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) since it was filed
2
within 21 days of the motion to dismiss. Defendants’ motion now attacks a complaint that is no
3
longer operative. Ramirez, --- F.3d ---, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20277 at *15. Therefore,
4
Defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied as moot. Id.
5
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1.
The December 14, 2015, hearing on Defendants' motion is VACATED;
8
2.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED as MOOT; and
9
3.
Defendants may file an answer or other responsive motion or pleading to the First
10
Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of service of this order.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?