Burgess et al v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 60

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 9 , 10 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/4/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

ANTHONY RUSSO, et al.,

4

Plaintiffs,
vs.

5
6

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et
al.,

7
Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00805-GMN-VCF
ORDER

9
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Daniel M. Burgess’ claims,

10
11

(ECF No. 9), filed by Defendants Clark County School District, Edward Goldman, James

12

Ketsaa, and Christopher Klemp (collectively “Defendants”). On September 25, 2017, the Court

13

granted the parties’ stipulation to dismiss Burgess’ claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 45). In

14

light of this stipulation, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion as moot.

15

Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Anthony

16

Russo’s due process claim. (ECF No. 10). After Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss, Russo

17

properly filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 49). “[A]n amended complaint supersedes

18

the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Ramirez v. County of San

19

Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Defendants’ Motion pertains to the

20

original complaint rather than the operative amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court denies

21

Defendants’ Motion as moot.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

I.

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 9, 10),

are DENIED as moot.
4
DATED this ___ day of January, 2018.

5
6
7
8

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2