ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES PRAYER [DOC. 11]

THOMAS J. WHELAN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to strike the punitive damages prayer from Plaintiff's Complaint. [Doc. 11.] The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Defendants' motion as moot.

"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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original pleading." Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992). "[A]fter amendment the original pleading no longer performs any function and is "`treated thereafter as non-existent[.]'" Id. (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967), overruled in part not relevant here by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012)).

Defendants' motion is based on Plaintiff's original Complaint, filed on September 1, 2017. (See Defs.' Mot. [Doc. 11].) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on October 31, 2017—one day after Defendants' motion and within the 21 days allowed for amending as a matter of course. (FAC [Doc. 12].) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because the original Complaint no longer performs any function, see Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262, Defendants' motion to strike a punitive damages prayer from it is denied as moot. [Doc. 11.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.