ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

(ECF No. 5)

ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

On January 25, 2019, Lynne Kemmer filed a complaint against USAA Savings Bank alleging three causes of action—two under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47, U.S.C. § 227, and one under the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17. ECF No. 1. The Complaint was served on January 31. ECF No. 4. On February 19, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for more definite statement under Rule 12e,1 seeking clarification on Plaintiff's third cause of action under the RFDCPA. ECF No. 5. Then, on March 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which appears to contain additional factual details about this particular cause of action. ECF No. 10.

The Court now denies as moot Defendant's Rule 12e motion. See Rule 15(a)(1)(B) ("A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier."); Snelson v. Washoe Cty. Det. Facility, 2014 WL 3956418, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 13, 2014) (recommending defendant officers' motion for a more definite statement be denied as moot where plaintiff filed a second amended complaint within the allotted time); see also Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) ("[An] amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.").

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.