Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02325/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02325-0/pdf.json

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jamel, LLC, an Arizona limited liability

company; William Reiber and Cynthia

Reiber, husband and wife; James R.

Shough and Elaine V. Shough, husband

and wife; Claude Lemieux and Debra

Lemieux, husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Michael H. Mugel, an unmarried

individual; Michael H. Mugel, as Trustee

of the Michael H. Mugel Trust, a

California Trust; Red Mountain Retail

Group, Inc., a California corporation; TBI

Construction, Inc., a California

corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2325-PHX-FJM

ORDER

This action arises out of the marketing and sale of non-managing membership interests

in several limited liability companies created to own and operate real estate projects. The

court has before it defendants Michael Mugel, individually and as trustee of the Michael

Mugel Trust, Red Mountain Retail Group, Inc., and TBI Construction, Inc.’s motion to

dismiss (doc. 14), plaintiffs Jamel, LLC, William and Cynthia Reiber, James and Elaine

Shough, and Claude and Debra Lemieux’s motion for leave to amend complaint and response

and first amended complaint (docs. 21 & 22), and defendants’ reply (doc. 25).

Case 2:08-cv-02325-FJM Document 26 Filed 05/18/09 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 -

Plaintiffs’ complaint contains twenty counts including federal securities law (counts

I & II) and various state law (counts III-XX) claims. Defendants move to dismiss on the

grounds that plaintiffs have failed to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), Fed. R.

Civ. P., or the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and the Private

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In response, plaintiffs move for leave to amend

their complaint. Defendants have not responded to plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, but

make clear that their motion to dismiss applies to plaintiffs’ original complaint only. 

Under Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party may amend a pleading once as of right at

any time before a responsive pleading has been filed. At this point, defendants have only

filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, which is not a responsive pleading. Miles v.

Dep’t of Army, 881 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs, therefore, still have the right

to amend their complaint without leave of court. Rule 15(a)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Once a complaint has been amended, “[t]he amended complaint supersedes the

original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57

(9th Cir. 1967) (citations omitted). Because plaintiffs have lodged a first amended

complaint, defendants motion to dismiss the original complaint is now moot and must be

denied on those grounds. This is, of course, without prejudice to defendants’ right file a

motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot

(doc. 14). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

amend (doc. 21). The clerk shall file the lodged amended complaint under LRCiv. 15.1(c).

DATED this 15th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02325-FJM Document 26 Filed 05/18/09 Page 2 of 2