Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01218/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01218-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN CRANE-MCNAB, LLC, et al., CASE NO. CV F 08-1218 LJO SMS

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S

MOTION (Doc. 7)

vs.

COUNTY OF MERCED,

Defendant.

 /

Defendant County of Merced (“County”) moved to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

Plaintiffs’ claims on the following grounds: (1) statute of limitations; (2) ripeness; (3) mootness; and (4)

failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act. In addition, County moved for a more definite

statement of Plaintiffs’ claims. Rather than oppose County’s motion, Plaintiffs Karen Crane-McNab,

LLC, Bert Crane Orchards, LP, Mary Crane Couchman Trust, and Mary Crane Couchman Family

Partnership, LP (collectively “Plaintiffs”) elected to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 15(a)(1). Docs. 10, 11.

An amended complaint supercedes a previous complaint rendering moot a motion to dismiss the

original complaint. See e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1991); Bullen v. De

Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956) (“[A]n amended pleading supercedes the original, the

latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”) Accordingly, this Court DISMISSES County’s motion

to dismiss VACATES the September 30, 2008 hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01218-WBS -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/16/08 Page 1 of 1