Hadsell v. Baskin et al

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating Defendants' 11 , 14 , 20 , 21 , 26 Motions to Dismiss based on Plaintiff's filing of the 45 First Amended Complaint.(kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTOPHER HADSELL,

Case No. 4:18-cv-00293-KAW

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER TERMINATING FIVE PENDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v.
9
10

BARRY BASKIN, et al.,

Dkt. Nos. 11, 14, 20, 21, 26

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On March 14, 15, 19, and 21, 2018, Defendants filed five separate motions to dismiss

13

Plaintiff Christopher Hadsell’s original complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 14, 20, 21, 26.) On April 6,

14

2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 45.)

15

Under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within

16

21 days of being served with a motion under Rule 12(b). While Plaintiff filed the first amended

17

complaint fewer than 21 days after service of three of the pending 12(b) motions, two motions

18

were filed 22 and 23 days prior to the filing of the amended complaint. (See Dkt. Nos. 11 & 14.)

19

Nevertheless, Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who missed the earliest filing deadline by only two days,

20

and the interests of judicial economy are best served by having a single operative complaint.

21

Accordingly, the Court terminates the five pending motions to dismiss, as the operative complaint

22

is now the amended complaint.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is advised that future attempts to amend the operative complaint require a
stipulation by all opposing parties or leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2018

______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge