Raul R. Haro v. Therm-X of California, Inc.

Filing 18

Order by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying as moot 12 Motion to Dismiss. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
RAUL R. HARO,

7

Case No. 15-cv-02123-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO DISMISS

9
THERM-X OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Defendant Therm-X of California, Inc. (“Therm-X”) moved to dismiss Plaintiff Raul

12
13

Haro’s Complaint. Mot. to Dismiss (dkt. 12). Haro has since filed a First Amended Complaint

14

(“FAC,” dkt. 14). The Court finds Therm-X’s Motion suitable for disposition without oral

15

argument and vacates the hearing scheduled for August 28, 2015. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
“[T]he general rule is that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint and

16
17

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

18

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 Accordingly, “[d]ismissal of the superseded original complaint would not alter the

19

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

20

now-operative First Amended Complaint.” See Liberi v. Defend Our Freedoms Founds., Inc., 509

21

F. App’x 595, 596 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissing as moot appeal of denial of an anti-SLAPP motion

22

regarding a superseded complaint). The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT Therm-X’s Motion.1

23

If Therm-X wishes to challenge Haro’s FAC, it may file a new motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: July 14, 2015

26

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

27
1

28

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all
purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).