Barragan v. Personniq, LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 24, 2014. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2014)

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

PEDRO BARRAGAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 14-0475 MMC
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT

v.
PERSONNIQ, LLC, JIM F. PRENDERGAST,
STEVEN RIX,

15
Defendants.
16

/

17
Before the Court are defendants Personniq, LLC’s and Jim F. Prendergast’s motions
18

to dismiss Complaint, both filed February 28, 2014.1 On March 20, 2014, plaintiff filed an

19
amended complaint.
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 his amended complaint within 21 days of the date on which he
26
was served with defendants’ respective motions to dismiss, and, consequently, pursuant to
27
28

1

Defendants’ motions to dismiss were filed before the instant case was reassigned
to the undersigned, and neither motion has been renoticed for hearing.

1

Rule 15, was entitled to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

2

Accordingly, defendants’ motions to dismiss are hereby DENIED as moot.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: March 24, 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