Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00712/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00712-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

07cv712

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT A. DANFORD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MANA INTERNET SOLUTIONS, S.A.,

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-CV-712-L(NLS)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS [doc. #4]

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the above-captioned case

on April 30, 2007 [doc. #4] which is set for hearing on June 11, 2007. On May 24, 2007,

plaintiffs filed a first amended class-action complaint. An amended complaint supersedes a prior

complaint as a pleading. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); Hal

Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). Where a

plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, a district court may treat an existing motion to

dismiss as moot.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-00712-L-NLS Document 7 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 2
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 07cv712

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED denying as moot defendants’ motion to

dismiss [doc. #4]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is without prejudice to

defendants moving to dismiss plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 25, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00712-L-NLS Document 7 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 2