Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adam Muskovitz, An Individual; Wendy Muskovitz, An Individual v. Homeamericancredit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 23, 2012

ADAM MUSKOVITZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; WENDY MUSKOVITZ, AN INDIVIDUAL,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
HOMEAMERICANCREDIT, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A CORPORATION; NDEX WEST, LLC; AND DOES 1
THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING DISMISSAL MOTION AS MOOT

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) on June 25, 2012. (ECF No. 4.) However, Plaintiffs timely filed a First Amended Complaint on July 16, 2012 (ECF No. 6), which is now the operative pleading. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc., v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating "an amended pleading supersedes the original"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (stating that "[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)").

Since the referenced dismissal motion does not address the operative pleading, it is denied as moot.

20120723

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.