Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03297/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03297-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WINDSPEED ACQUISITION FUND GP, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOVEBID, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________________

No. C 05-3297 SBA

 

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19]

On August 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants Dovebid, Inc. ("Dovebid"), Ross

Dove ("Dove"), Bill Burnham ("Burnham"), and William Price ("Price") [Docket No. 1]. 

On October 28, 2005, defendant Dovebid filed a Motion to Dismiss, defendants Burnham and Price

filed a Motion to Dismiss (collectively, "Joint Motions to Dismiss"), and defendant Dove joined in the Joint

Motions to Dismiss. The Joint Motions to Dismiss were set for a January 24, 2006 hearing.

On November 17, 2005, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint [Docket No. 20]. Also on that

date, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants' Joint Motions to Dismiss. In the Opposition, Plaintiff requests

that the Court deny the Joint Motions to Dismiss as moot. 

By its very nature, the First Amended Complaint supersedes Plaintiff'sinitial complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) ("The amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being

treated thereafter as non-existent."). The Court therefore finds that the Joint Motions to Dismiss have been

rendered moot, and that it does not serve the interests ofjudicial economy to proceed on motions that are no

longer directed at the operative complaint. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion to Dismiss of Dovebid and the Motion to Dismiss of

Burnham and Price are DENIED AS MOOT. The January 24, 2006 hearing on the Motions to Dismiss is

Case 4:05-cv-03297-SBA Document 22 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

VACATED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Case Management Conference originally scheduled for

December14, 2005 at 3:15 p.m. is VACATED. The parties shall appear for a telephonic Case Management

Conference onWednesday, January 25, 2006 at 2:45 p.m. The parties shall meet and conferpriorto the

conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than

ten (10) days prior to the Case Management Conference. Plaintiff shall be responsible for filing the statement

as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on the line and shall call (510) 637-3559 at the

above indicated date and time. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants are granted leave to respond to Plaintiff's First

Amended Complaint within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order. Additionally, Plaintiff is expressly

reminded that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, it may not file another amended complaint

without first seeking prior leave of Court. The parties are further reminded of their obligationto engaged in a

meaningful meet and confer prior to filing any motions with this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2005 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03297-SBA Document 22 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2