Welch et al v. Golden Gate Casino, LLC et al
Filing
63
ORDER Granting 57 Stipulation to File Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is instructed to file the Second Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 20 Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss, 21 Defendant's Motion to Dis miss, 38 Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, 46 and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss are all DENIED as moot and without prejudice. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 04/01/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
12
Brandy Welch and Heather Blackmun, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Case No.: 2:13-cv-01089-JAD-GWF
Plaintiffs,
13
14
vs.
15
Golden Gate Casino, LLC dba Golden Gate
Hotel & Casino, and Does 1 through 50,
16
Defendants
Order
17
18
This is a wage-dispute action by former employees of the Golden Gate Hotel & Casino.
19
Plaintiffs first amended their complaint in September 2013, alleging claims against the Golden Gate
20
and four other defendants: Desert Rock Enterprises, LLC, Mark Brandenburg, Derek Stevens, and
21
Dave Tuttle. See Doc. 14. All defendants save Brandenburg responded with motions to dismiss the
22
First Amended Complaint. See Docs. 20, 21, 46. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for Court Supervised
23
Notice of their FLSA claims. Doc. 38.
24
The parties participated in a settlement conference and, although it did not result in the
25
settlement of this case, it “was not unproductive.” Doc. 60 at 2. As a result of the settlement
26
conference, Plaintiffs have elected to proceed only against Golden Gate, and on March 12, 2014,
27
these remaining parties filed a Stipulation to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 57), which
28
drops all claims against the other defendants and some of Plaintiff Welch’s claims. Doc. 57-1. The
1
remaining parties’ Stipulated Updated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Doc. 60) also foretells
2
Golden Gate’s intention to file a new motion to dismiss based on the allegations in the Second
3
Amended Complaint (Doc. 60 at 5, ¶ I) and the plaintiffs’ intention to file a new version of their
4
motion for court-supervised notice sometime in October 2014. Id. at ¶ J. Magistrate Judge Foley
5
signed the Stipulated Updated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order on March 26, 2014. Id. at 6.
6
Having reviewed the Stipulation to File the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 57), and
7
based upon the Stipulation of the remaining parties and the representations in the Updated Discovery
8
Plan, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation to File Second Amended Complaint
9
(Doc. 57) is approved; LEAVE IS GRANTED for the filing of the Second Amended Complaint
10
11
12
13
(Doc. 57-1).
The Clerk of Court is instructed to file the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 57-1)
forthwith.
The filing of the Second Amended Complaint moots all pending motions. “An amended
14
complaint supercedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa
15
Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). When a complaint is amended during the pendency of the
16
motion to dismiss, the motion to dismiss is rendered moot. The filing of the Second Amended
17
Complaint moots all of the pending motions to dismiss (Docs. 20, 21, 46) and the motion for court-
18
supervised notice (Doc. 38). And the remaining parties have already built into their scheduling order
19
new deadlines for their revised and renewed versions of these requests. See Doc. 60. Accordingly,
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Golden Gate Casino and David Tuttle’s renewed
21
Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20), Desert Rock’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21),
22
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Circulation of Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (Doc. 38), and Derek
23
Stevens’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 46) are all DENIED as moot and without prejudice to their
24
reassertion at a later time.
25
DATED: April 1, 2014.
26
27
28
_________________________________
JENNIFER A. DORSEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?