UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 24, 2011
WAL-MART STORES, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 5]
On March 24, 2011, Plaintiff Edison Cabaluna commenced an action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, alleging Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin and disability. See Doc. No. 1. On May 31, 2011, Defendant removed the action to this Court and thereafter filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). See Doc. Nos. 1-5. On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint.*fn1 See Doc. No. 6.
The complaint which Defendant moves to dismiss is no longer the operative pleading in this action. An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Because Defendant's pending motion seeks dismissal of a complaint that is no longer the operative pleading in this case, the motion has become moot.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.