Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02754/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02754-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

– 1 –

15cv2754

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDORA, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-2754-BAS-RBB

ORDER TERMINATING AS 

MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 8]

v.

ISAGENIX INTERNATIONAL 

PRODUCTS EXPORT, INC., a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

On January 14, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for 

lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, for improper venue.

1

(ECF No. 8.) 

On January 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 

10.)

The FAC was timely filed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). (“A 

party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after 

service of a motion under Rule 12(b)[.]”) Thus, the FAC supersedes the original, and 

the original Complaint, to which Defendant directed its motion to dismiss, is treated 

 

1

In the further alternative, Defendant moves to transfer the action to the District of Arizona.

Case 3:15-cv-02754-BAS-RBB Document 12 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2
– 2 –

15cv2754

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

as “non-existent.” See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967), overruled on 

other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, 

the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 29, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02754-BAS-RBB Document 12 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2