Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC. v. Sungame Corp et al

Filing 43

ORDER Denying as moot and without prejudice 23 , 24 and 28 Motions to Dismiss or Transfer Venue. The 42 Stipulation to Extend Time is Granted. Defendants Chadran Holding Media, Inc., Neil Chandran, Commander 3D, Inc., Freevi Corporation a nd Sungame Corps' answer due 5/27/2016. If any Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs repsonse will be due 6/17/2016. Reply brief due by 7/1/2016. The hearing on the original motions to dismiss scheduled for 6/13/ 2016, is Vacated. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 5/16/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
2:16-cv-00074-JAD-GWF

4
5

Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC
dba Newtek Merchant Solutions,

6

Plaintiff

7

v.

8

Order Denying Motions to Dismiss as
Moot in Light of Amended Complaint

Sungame Corp., et al.,

[#23, 24, 28, 42]
9

Defendants

10
11

In response to the original complaint, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or,

12

alternatively, transfer venue.1 Two weeks later, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,2 and the parties

13

have stipulated to extend the defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to it.3

14

Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits parties to amend their

15

complaints once as a matter of course within 21 days of a motion to dismiss.4 Plaintiff’s amended

16

complaint was timely filed as of right. Once filed, an amended pleading supersedes the original

17

pleading in its entirety, mooting a motion to dismiss the original pleading.5

18
19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motions to dismiss or transfer venue
based on the original complaint [ECF No. 23, 24, 28] are DENIED as moot and without prejudice;

20
21

I treat the pending stipulation to extend time to respond to the complaint [ECF No. 42] as a
joint motion to extend the deadlines, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request to extend the

22
23

1

ECF No. 23, 24, 28.

24

2

ECF No. 37.

25

3

ECF No. 42.

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).

26
27

5

28

See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds in
Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).
Page 1 of 2

1

deadlines [ECF No. 42] is GRANTED. Defendants will have until May 27, 2016, to answer or

2

otherwise respond to the amended complaint [ECF No. 37]; if any defendant moves to dismiss

3

the amended complaint, plaintiff’s response will be due June 17, 2016, and reply briefs will be

4

due July 1, 2016.

5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the original motions to dismiss
scheduled for June 13, 2016, is VACATED.
Dated this 16th day of May, 2016.

8
9

_________________________________
___________________
__ ___ __ _ ____
_
Jennifer A. Dorsey
ifer Dorsey
r
United States District Judge
ed States
t t
Judge
ud

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2