Knapp v. Sage Payment Solutions, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING. Motion terminated. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 09/22/2017. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

RAYMOND KNAPP,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

Case No. 17-cv-03591-MMC

v.
SAGE PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., et
al.,

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
VACATING HEARING

Defendants.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Before the Court is defendant Sage Payment Solutions, Inc.’s “Motion to Dismiss

12

the Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Strike Class Allegations and to Stay Discovery,”

13

filed September 8, 2017, pursuant to Rules 12(b) and 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

14

Procedure. On September 22, 2017, plaintiff Raymond Knapp filed a First Amended

15

Complaint (“FAC”).

16

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

17

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

18

(e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “[A]n amended pleading

19

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

20

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

21

In the instant case, plaintiff filed his FAC within 21 days after service of

22

defendant’s motion to dismiss, and, consequently, was entitled to amend as of right. See

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

24
25

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES as moot defendants’ motion to dismiss the
initial complaint and vacates the hearing set for October 27, 2017.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: September 22, 2017

28

MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge