Cheapskate Charlie's LLC et al v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying as moot 58 Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint and vacating October 17, 2014 hearing. (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHEAPSKATE CHARLIE'S LLC, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05888-JCS

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 58

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,
Third-Party Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO DISMISS THIRD-PARTY
COMPLAINT AND VACATING
HEARING

v.
MEADOW RIVER LUMBER COMPANY,
et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, the defendant in the underlying action, filed a Third-Party

18

Complaint against Meadow River Lumber Company and Calvin D. Garland (the “Garland

19

Parties”). Dkt. 50. On August 29, 2014, the Garland Parties filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third-

20

Party Complaint. Dkt. 58. In response, Louisiana-Pacific filed an Amended Third-Party

21

Complaint (Dkt. 63) pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The

22

Court finds the Garland Parties’ Motion suitable for disposition without oral argument, and

23

vacates the hearing scheduled for October 17, 2014. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The time of the

24

Case Management Conference is changed to 2:00 p.m. on October 17, 2014.

25

“[T]he general rule is that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint and

26

renders it without legal effect . . . .” Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012)

27

(en banc). Accordingly, “[d]ismissal of the superseded original [third-party] complaint would not

28

alter the proceedings . . . as the parties would continue to litigate the merits of the claims contained

1

in the now-operative First Amended [Third-Party] Complaint.” See Liberi v. Defend Our

2

Freedoms Founds., Inc., 509 F. App’x 595, 596 (dismissing as moot appeal of denial of an anti-

3

SLAPP motion regarding a superseded complaint). The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT the

4

Garland Parties’ Motion. 1 If the Garland Parties wish to challenge Louisiana-Pacific’s Amended

5

Third-Party Complaint, they may file a new motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: September 24, 2014
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
2