Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03424/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03424-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03424-JCS 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 

TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 34

Defendant OptumInsight, Inc. (“OptumInsight”) moved to dismiss the Complaint filed by 

Plaintiff Cave Consulting Group, Inc. (“Cave Consulting”). Mot. to Dismiss (dkt. 34). Cave 

Consulting has since filed an Amended Complaint (dkt. 39).1 The Court finds OptumInsight’s 

Motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates the hearing scheduled for 

November 6, 2015. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

“[T]he general rule is that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint and 

renders it without legal effect . . . .” Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(en banc). Accordingly, “[d]ismissal of the superseded original complaint would not alter the 

proceedings . . . as the parties would continue to litigate the merits of the claims contained in the 

now-operative First Amended Complaint.” See Liberi v. Defend Our Freedoms Founds., Inc., 509 

F. App’x 595, 596 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissing as moot appeal of denial of an anti-SLAPP motion 

regarding a superseded complaint). 

The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT OptumInsight’s Motion. If OptumInsight wishes 

 

1 Cave Consulting filed its Amended Complaint seventy-eight days after the original 

Complaint was served and twenty-seven days after OptumInsight filed its Motion, which is 

outside the time allowed to amend as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court nevertheless grants Cave Consulting leave to amend under 

Rule 15(a)(2). 

Case 3:15-cv-03424-JCS Document 41 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to challenge the Amended Complaint, OptumInsight may file a new motion.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

2

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:15-cv-03424-JCS Document 41 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 2