Hillesheim et al v. Kaneko et al

Filing 19

ORDER - that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Filing No. 13 ) and Plaintiffs' motion to extend (Filing No. 17 ), are denied as moot. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ZACH HILLESHEIM, and MELANIE
DAVIS,
8:18CV139
Plaintiffs,
ORDER

vs.
KANEKO, and 1111 JONES STREET,
LLC,
Defendants.

On June 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion (Filing No. 17) to extend their
deadline to file a brief in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Filing No. 13). On June
8, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. (Filing No. 18).

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was properly filed, as a matter of course, in compliance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). And because Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was properly filed, it
supersedes the original complaint as the operative pleading. Titus v. Stanton Cty., Neb., 2013
WL 4546566, at *4 (D. Neb. 2013) (“[t]here is no dispute an amended pleading supersedes the
original pleading in all respects”). As such, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Filing No. 13) is
rendered moot. Bernhardt v. Johns, 2009 WL 971443, at *1 (D. Neb. 2009) (“a motion to amend
the complaint render[s] moot a pending motion to dismiss”) (internal quotation omitted).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Filing No. 13) and Plaintiffs’ motion
to extend (Filing No. 17), are denied as moot.

Dated this 8th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge