Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC v. Sungame Corp., 2:16-cv-00074-JAD-GWF. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160519e58 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 17, 2016
Latest Update: May 17, 2016
Summary: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss as Moot in Light of Amended Complaint [#23, 24, 28, 42] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . In response to the original complaint, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, transfer venue. 1 Two weeks later, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, 2 and the parties have stipulated to extend the defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to it. 3 Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits parties to amend
More

Order Denying Motions to Dismiss as Moot in Light of Amended Complaint [#23, 24, 28, 42]

In response to the original complaint, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, transfer venue.1 Two weeks later, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,2 and the parties have stipulated to extend the defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to it.3

Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits parties to amend their complaints once as a matter of course within 21 days of a motion to dismiss.4 Plaintiff's amended complaint was timely filed as of right. Once filed, an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading in its entirety, mooting a motion to dismiss the original pleading.5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motions to dismiss or transfer venue based on the original complaint [ECF No. 23, 24, 28] are DENIED as moot and without prejudice;

I treat the pending stipulation to extend time to respond to the complaint [ECF No. 42] as a joint motion to extend the deadlines, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request to extend the deadlines [ECF No. 42] is GRANTED. Defendants will have until May 27, 2016, to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint [ECF No. 37]; if any defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaint, plaintiff's response will be due June 17, 2016, and reply briefs will be due July 1, 2016.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the original motions to dismiss scheduled for June 13, 2016, is VACATED.

FootNotes


1. ECF No. 23, 24, 28.
2. ECF No. 37.
3. ECF No. 42.
4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
5. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds in Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer