Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01521/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01521-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

X DOE,

 

Plaintiff,

v.

LASSEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT, CHRIS

ALBERICO, MARY ELIZABETH

ALBERICO BERRY MURPHY

and HOMER 

 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1521 LEW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE TO

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Before this Court are Defendants’ Motions to

Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b) as well as Defendant’s Motion

to Strike and Requests for Judicial Notice. Having

considered all the pleadings filed in this matter, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01521-JAM -DAD Document 24 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 3
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 2

On July 13, 2007 Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the

above captioned matter. 

On August 20, 2007 and August 29, 2007 both the

individual defendants and Lassen Community College

District (“Lassen”) moved to Dismiss the Complaint

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b),

respectively. Lassen additionally Moved to Strike

certain portions of the Complaint. Both Defendants

requested the Court take judicial notice of documents

pertaining to the Motions to Dismiss. 

On September 24, 2007, Plaintiff filed an

Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss and filed a “FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

Based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “a

party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter

of course at any time before a responsive pleading is

served. . .” It is well settled that a Motion to

Dismiss is not a “responsive pleading.” Allen v.

Veterans Admin., 749 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1984);

Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

becomes the operative complaint as of the date of this

Order and Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, Motion to

Case 2:07-cv-01521-JAM -DAD Document 24 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 3
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 2

Strike and Requests for Judicial Notice are DENIED as

Moot. 

Defendants shall have until October 18, 2007 to

file a response to the First Amended Complaint. All

other filing dates shall be in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW

 Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

DATED: October 2, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-01521-JAM -DAD Document 24 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3