Padilla v. Department of the Navy et al

Filing 9

ORDER Denying 4 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss As Moot. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 12/1/2017. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARTHUR PADILLA,

Case No.: 17-CV-1182 W (NLS)
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
[DOC. 4]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

On September 29, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. [Doc. 4.] 19 days

17
18

later, on October 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

19

[Doc. 5.]
A party may amend a complaint within 21 days of service of a responsive pleading.

20
21

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “It is well-established in our circuit that an ‘amended

22

complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’ ”

23

Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Forsyth

24

v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997)). Accordingly, when a plaintiff

25

timely amends, the original complaint ceases to exist, and any pending motions to

26

dismiss it are moot. See id.

27

//

28

//
1
17-CV-1182 W (NLS)

In light of the filing of the FAC, the Court denies Defendants’ motion [Doc. 4] as

1
2

moot.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: December 1, 2017

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-CV-1182 W (NLS)