UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 6, 2007
SAM BEDWELL, SUZANNE M. MORENO AND JONATHON SIMON, PLAINTIFFS,
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., A (DOC. # 6) CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: William Q. Hayes United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
Pending before the Court is Defendant Fish & Richardson's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action ("Motion to Dismiss") (Doc. # 6), filed January 17, 2007. On February 6, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, as was their right pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ("A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served...."); see also Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) ("A motion to dismiss is not a 'responsive pleading' within the meaning of Rule 15."). Once filed, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint in its entirety. See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, addressing the original Complaint, became moot once the First Amended Complaint was filed. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 6) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant shall file a response to the First Amended Complaint no later than April 6, 2007, pursuant to the Court's February 22, 2007 Order granting the parties' joint motion for extension of time. (Doc. # 15.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.