McDanel v. McDanel

Filing 38

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 7 Defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. Defendant may file a renewed motion to strike as to the operative complaint by 8/21/17. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/8/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

CONNIE MCDANEL,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

MICHAEL G. MCDANEL,
7

Defendant.

8
9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00492-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 7), filed by Defendant

10

Michael G. McDanel (“Defendant”). Plaintiff Connie McDanel (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response,

11

(ECF No. 16), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 20).

12

Prior to Defendant’s Reply, however, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No.

13

18). “[A]n amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as

14

non-existent.” Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015).

15

While Defendant references portions of the Amended Complaint in his Reply, the underlying

16

Motion to Strike pertains to the original complaint rather than the operative amended

17

complaint.

18

Accordingly,

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 7), is

20

DENIED as moot. Defendant may file a renewed motion to strike as to the operative

21

complaint by August 21, 2017.

22

8
DATED this _____ day of August, 2017.

23
24
25

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge
Page 1 of 1