Smith v. Dream Forge Entertainment LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 GABRIEL SMITH, 10 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C19-1003-RSL-MAT 11 v. ORDER RE: FIRST MOTION TO 12 DREAM FORGE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, DISMISS AND AMENDED et al., COMPLAINT 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff initiated this matter with a complaint filed on June 27, 2019. (Dkt. 1.) Defendants 17 filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in lieu of an answer. 18 (Dkt. 13.) Plaintiff responded to defendants’ motion with an amended complaint (Dkt. 15), timely 19 submitted pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B), as well as a response deeming defendants’ motion moot 20 in light of the amended pleading (Dkt. 16). Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss 21 the First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 17.) 22 As plaintiff observes in the response to defendants’ first motion, the filing of an amended 23 complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it without legal affect. Lacey v. Maricopa 1 Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012); see also see also Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 2 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[I]t is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes the 3 original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”). The Court, as such, herein STRIKES 4 as moot defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 13.) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First 5 Amended Complaint (Dkt. 17) remains pending and will be addressed by the Court. The Clerk is 6 directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties. 7 DATED this 25th day of October, 2019. 8 A 9 Mary Alice Theiler 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23