Valdez v. Scott et al

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Hixson finding as moot 22 Motion to Dismiss. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

STEPHEN CHARLES VALDEZ,

Case No. 24-cv-01087-TSH

Plaintiff,

7

ORDER FINDING AS MOOT MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.

8
9

NADERI SALAR, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 22

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Salar Naderi and

12
13

Marc Jimenez, filed on May 1, 2024. ECF No. 22. However, on May 30, 2024, Plaintiff Stephen

14

Charles Valdez filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 29. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15

15(a)(1), a party “may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” within 21 days after that

16

pleading is served, or within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or motion under Rule

17

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

18

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

19

banc). Thus, as there has been no previous amendment, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint

20

as a matter of course under Rule 15(a). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall terminate the

21

pending motion to dismiss as moot. Defendants shall respond in compliance with Rule 15(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: June 6, 2024

25
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28

1

On May 6, 2024, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition or amended
complaint to June 3, 2024. ECF No. 28