ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is defendants Mark Hill, et. al.'s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. #10). Plaintiff Dominic Anthony Marrocco filed a response. (Doc. #13). Defendants then filed a reply. (Doc. #14). Also before the court is plaintiff's motion for order to show cause why notice of lis pendens should not be expunged. (Doc. #4).

On January 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting four causes of action: (1) slander of title, (2) abuse of process, (3) conspiracy, and (4) racketeering. (Doc. #1; see also Doc. #12). The parties before the court are also involved in a case in the district court of Harris County, Texas: Hill v. Marrocco, 2010-05438. (Doc. #1; see also Doc. #12). In the Texas action, the parties are inverted, such that the plaintiff in this case is the defendant in the Texas case, and defendant Mark Hill is the plaintiff in the Texas case. (Doc. #1; see also Doc. #12).

Here, the complaint alleges that defendants caused a notice of lis pendens to be recorded in the official records of the Clark County recorder based on the Texas action. (Doc. #1; see also Doc. #12). Further, defendants allegedly misrepresented the nature of the Texas action in the notice of lis pendens. Plaintiff asserts that the notice of lis pendens filed here in Nevada is "false and perjurious." (Doc. #1; see also Doc. #12). The causes of action in the complaint all arise from the filing of this notice of lis pendens. (Doc. #1; see also Doc. #12).

On January 27, 2012, defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. (Doc. #10). Defendants argue that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. #10).

Plaintiff filed a response and an amended complaint on February 13, 2012. (Docs. #12 and #13). Rather than respond to the substance of defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff simply attached a copy of his amended complaint to his response, stating that he was responding by filing an amended complaint. (Doc. #13). Plaintiff amended his complaint as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).

In their reply, defendants argue that plaintiff has not mooted their motion to dismiss by filing the first amended complaint. (Doc. #14). Defendants assert that there are no material differences between the amended complaint and the original complaint, so "it remains appropriate for the court to address and determine the motion to dismiss as filed on the original complaint with respect to addressing the entire action." (Doc. #14).

While many of the allegations in the first amended complaint are similar to the original complaint, the court is not inclined to find that there are no material differences between the two complaints. (See Docs. #1 and #12). Further, plaintiff has not responded to defendants' substantive arguments in the motion to dismiss because plaintiff instead elected to file an amended complaint as a matter of course. (Docs. #12 and #13). Therefore, the court will not dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint based on the arguments in defendants' previously filed motion to dismiss.

Also before the court is plaintiff's motion for order to show cause why notice of lis pendens should not be expunged. (Doc. #4). In their motion to dismiss, defendants assert that they discovered the erroneous nature of the lis pendens only once plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit. (Doc. #10). Further, defendants allegedly immediately removed the lis pendens once they became aware that it was filed in error. (Doc. #10).

Although defendants assert that "there is no pending lis pendens," (doc. #10), plaintiff's first amended complaint asserts that defendants' efforts to remove the lis pendens were insufficient or incomplete (doc. #12). Plaintiff notes that defendants caused a release of lis pendens to be recorded, but that the release was not signed by defendant Hill. (Doc. #12). Further, plaintiff obtained preliminary title reports on the disputed property, and the preliminary reports state that the release was insufficient. (Doc. #12). In light of the uncertain status of the notice of lis pendens, it is appropriate for the court to order further briefing on plaintiff's motion for order to show cause.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants Mark Hill, et. al.'s motion to dismiss (doc. #10) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for order to show cause why notice of lis pendens should not be expunged (doc. #4) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file a brief with the court demonstrating why notice of lis pendens should not be expunged on or before March 9, 2012. Plaintiff may respond within 14 days of the entry of the defendants' brief, and defendants may file a reply within 7 days of plaintiff's response.