Lum v. County of San Joaquin, et al.,

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/17/2010 DENYING without prejudice 10 Motion to Dismiss; The hearing on this motion set for 9/27/2010 is vacated. (Matson, R)

Lum v. County of San Joaquin, et al.,

Doc. 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JERRY LUM, et al., 10 NO. CIV. S-10-1807 LKK/DAD 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendants. / Plaintiffs in this suit bring claims against police officers and government entities concerning the events surrounding the arrest and death of plaintiffs' son. On August 23, 2010, all defendants moved to dismiss several claims against them under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6). This motion is set for hearing on September 27, 2010. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiffs' opposition or statements Plaintiffs of did non-opposition not file an was due on September 13, of 2010. nonv. ORDER COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

opposition

or

statement

opposition. Instead, on September 9, 2010, seventeen days after the motion was filed, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Pursuant 1
Dockets.Justia.com

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

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), plaintiffs may file an amended complaint twenty one days after service of a motion to dismiss. Thus, plaintiff's amended complaint was timely filed. It appears that some of the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss portions of the initial complaint may also apply to the amended complaint. Nonetheless, the court declines to address this issue without briefing directly on point from either party. Accordingly, the pending motion, ECF No. 10 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. The hearing on this motion set for September 27, 2010 is hereby VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 17, 2010.

2