v. Hernandez et al

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James finding as moot 18 Motion to Dismiss (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2013)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

Northern District of California

3
4

LIBORIO HERNANDEZ and ROGELIO
RODRIGUEZ-PEREZ,

5
Plaintiffs,
6

v.

7

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

NOR-CAL MOVING SERVICES,

8

No. C 12-5552 MEJ

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

9
10
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 18. However, on

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 22. Under Federal Rule of Civil

13

Procedure 15, a party may amend its pleading once “as a matter of course” within “21 days after

14

service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

15

Thus, as no prior amended complaints have been filed, Plaintiff was entitled to file an amended

16

complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a). The amended complaint supersedes the original

17

complaint, which is treated as non-existent. Since Defendant’s motion is based on Plaintiff’s

18

original complaint, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s motion as moot. Defendant shall file an

19

answer or other responsive pleading within 21 days from the date of this Order.

20

Plaintiff is advised that no further amendments may be made without seeking leave of Court

21

pursuant to Rule 15 and Civil Local Rule 7. Any attempt to file an amended complaint without

22

proper notice to Defendant under Civil Local Rule 7 and a court order shall be stricken.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27
28

Dated: April 23, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge