Anderson et al v. Select Comfort Retail Corporation

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/3/10 ORDERING that defendant's 7 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot for failure to address the operative pleading. (Owen, 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 1 KANDY ANDERSON and DOUGLAS ANDERSON, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) SELECT COMFORT RETAIL CORPORATION, ) a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES ) 1 through 50, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2:10-cv-0128-GEB-KJM ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

On January 22, 2010, defendant Select Comfort Retail Corporation filed a motion in which it seeks to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. However, the parties jointly filed a Stipulation on

February 19, 2010, in which they agreed to allow plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint. that same day. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint

Further, an order filed February 23, 2010, approved

the Stipulation; therefore, plaintiffs' first amended complaint 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

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: March 3, 2010

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2