Manoos v. Citibank N.A.

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 8, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A motion to dismiss is not a "responsive pleading." See Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F. 3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA REYNALDO M. MANOOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, No. C 08-3359 MMC ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS United States District Court CITIBANK, N.A., dba CITI, Defendant. / Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of defendant Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. ("Citibank"), incorrectly identified as Citibank, N.A., dba CITI, filed August 15, 2008. On October 4, 2008, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. A party may amend a pleading "once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).1 "[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent." Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956). Accordingly, Citibank's Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 8, 2008 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

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?