Dawson v. California Dept of Park & Recreation Officer Nathan Mills

Filing 12

ORDER terminating as moot Defendant's 7 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff filed 8 First Amended Complaint on 3/7/2017. Plaintiff's amended complaint supersedes the original, and her initial Complaint is now treated as "non-existent". Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/29/2017. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

HELON DAWSON,
Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No.: 16-cv-02925-BAS-AGS
ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT

v.

16
17
18

NATHAN MILLS,
Defendant.

[ECF No. 7]

19
20

On February 17, 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

22

Rather, she filed a First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2017. (ECF No. 8.)

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may file an amended

24

pleading “once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under

25

Rule 12(b)[.]” Here, Plaintiff filed her amended pleading within 21 days after Defendant

26

served his motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Thus, Plaintiff did not require leave of

27

court to amend her pleading, and her First Amended Complaint is now the operative

28

pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Further, Plaintiff’s “amended complaint supersedes
–1–
16cv2925

1

the original,” and her initial Complaint is now treated as “non-existent.” See Valadez-

2

Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court therefore

3

TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s initial Complaint

4

(ECF No. 7).

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

DATED: March 29, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–2–
16cv2925