(Consent) Murillo v. City of Woodland et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/18/10 ORDERING dfts' Motion to Dismiss #8 DENIED AS MOOT. (Carlos, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESIREE MURILLO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WOODLAND, RYAN PIERCY, CASEY SULLIVAN, and DOES 1 to 40, Inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:09-cv-03117-GEB-GGH ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT*

On December 30, 2009, Defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) seeking to dismiss certain claims in Plaintiff's complaint. However, on February 11, 2010, the

parties filed a joint stipulation in which they stipulate to allowing Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff then filed a

first amended complaint on February 16, 2010, which is now the operative pleading. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc., v. Richard Feiner

and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating an amended complaint supercedes the prior complaint). Since the pending

argument.

This matter is deemed to be suitable for decision without oral E.D. Cal. R. 230(g). 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

dismissal motion does not address the operative pleading, it is denied as moot. Dated: February 18, 2010

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2