IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2009
JAMES ROTHERY, ESQ.; ANDREA HOFFMAN, PLAINTIFFS,
FORMER SHERIFF LOU BLANAS; SHERIFF JOHN MCGINNISS; DETECTIVE TIM SHEEHAN; DETECTIVE FRED MASON; SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AN INDEPENDENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL JERRY BROWN; DOES 1 THROUGH 25, UNKNOWN CO-CONSPIRATORS; ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL B. MUKASEY DEFENDANTS.
Because Plaintiffs James Rothery and Andrea Hoffman have filed an Amended Complaint (Docket # 24), Defendants County of Sacramento, former Sheriff Lou Blanas, Sheriff John McGinnis, Detective Tim Sheehan and Detective Fred Mason's Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss, to Strike, and for a More Definite Statement (Docket # 17) are moot. For the same reason, Defendant Attorney General Jerry Brown's Motion to Dismiss (Docket # 18) is moot.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), "a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). "A motion to dismiss is not a 'responsive pleading' within the meaning of the Rule." Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 496-97 (9th Cir. 1986).
Here, while Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss, a Motion to Strike, and a Motion for a More Definite Statement, no party has filed a "responsive pleading" pursuant to Rule 15(a). Thus, Plaintiffs may amend their Complaint as a matter of course. Accordingly, the Court treats Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed on May 1, 2009 (Doc. # 24) as the operative Complaint for the case. In light of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, and Motion for a More Definite Statement as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.