UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
January 18, 2013
HAKAM SINGH MISSION, ET AL.,
ENRICO JOHN POLIMENO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maria-Elena James United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO 6 DISMISS
before the Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 3, 5, 9.
However, on January 17, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint. Dkt. No. 13. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, a
party may amend its pleading once "as a matter of course" within "21
after service of a responsive pleading or
21 days after service of a motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
For the Northern District of California For the Northern
District of California
complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a). The amended
complaint supersedes the original
Thus, as no prior amended complaints have been filed, Plaintiffs were entitled to file an amended complaint, which is treated as non-existent. Since Defendants' motion are based on Plaintiffs' original complaint, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' motions as moot. Defendants shall file an answer or other responsive pleading within 21 days from the date of this Order. The order to 19 show cause is DISCHARGED.
Plaintiffs are advised that no further amendments may be made without seeking leave of 21 Court pursuant to Rule 15 and Civil Local Rule 7. Any attempt to file an amended complaint 22 without proper notice to Defendants under Civil Local Rule 7 and a court order shall be stricken. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.