ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 20

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff timely filed both an opposition to the motion and a First Amended Complaint. For the reasons set out below, the Court finds that plaintiff's First Amended Complaint supersedes the original complaint, mooting defendants' existing dismissal motion. Accordingly, the hearing currently set for August 10, 2018 is VACATED, and defendants' present motion, Dkt. No. 20, is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Defendants may file a new motion to dismiss, directed at the FAC, if they believe it to be appropriate.

DISCUSSION

On March 20, 2018, plaintiff Raq Bey, appearing pro se, filed his Complaint in Alameda Superior Court alleging multiple Fourth Amendment violations by defendant police officers. Dkt. No. 1. On May 4, 2018, plaintiff's case was removed to this Court. Id. On July 5, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in the complaint. Dkt. No. 20. On July 16, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss and a first amended complaint ("FAC"). Dkt. No. 22. On July 18, 2018, defendants filed a letter requesting the Court clarify whether the opposition or FAC controls. Dkt. No. 23.

"A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Further, an "amended pleading supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent." Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 947 (1957), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint. State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court, 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1130-1131 (2010); see also Borgman v. Insphere Ins., No. 5:12-CV-06352 EJD, 2013 WL 1409921, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2013).

Here, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 5, 2018. Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiff filed his FAC on July 16, 2018, less than 21 days after defendants' motion. Dkt. No. 22. Therefore, plaintiff's FAC is the controlling document and moots defendants' motion directed at the original complaint. If defendants believe the FAC fails to state a claim, defendants must file a new motion to dismiss directed at the FAC.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DISMISSES defendants' current motion to dismiss as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.