(PS) Sharma v. Griswold ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NARENDRA SHARMA, No. 2:19–cv–1731–MCE–KJN (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 13 v. (ECF Nos. 5, 6) 14 RICHARDSON C. GRISWOLD, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant on September 3, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On 18 October 10, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) Seven days later, Plaintiff filed a 19 First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows for a 20 complaint to be amended “once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion 21 under Rule 12(b) . . . .”). This amendment as a matter of course renders an original complaint 22 null. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen a plaintiff files an 23 amended complaint, the amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated 24 thereafter as non-existent.”). 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss 26 (ECF No. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT. 27 //// 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | Dated: October 29, 2019 ; Frese Arn 4 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE S | shar.1731 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28