Riley v. City of Richmond et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND/OR STRIKE PLEADINGS; VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 29, 2014. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

DEDRICK RILEY,
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT, STAY PROCEEDINGS,
AND/OR STRIKE PLEADINGS;
VACATING HEARING

v.

13
14

No. C 13-4752 MMC

THE CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

Before the Court is defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss Complaint, Stay Proceedings,

18

and/or Strike Pleadings,” filed December 31, 2013. On January 14, 2014, plaintiff filed a

19

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

20

A party may amend a pleading “once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after

21

service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e),

22

or (f), whichever is earlier.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “[A]n amended pleading

23

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Bullen v. De

24

Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 947 (1957).

25

Here, plaintiff filed the FAC within 21 days of the date on which he was served

26

with defendants’ motion to dismiss, and, consequently, was entitled to amend. See Fed. R.

27

Civ. P. 15(a).

28

//

1
2
3

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES as moot defendants’ motion, and VACATES
the February 7, 2014 hearing scheduled thereon.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: January 29, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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