Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00368/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00368-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS SMITH, MD and HOBERT

SMITH, MD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION, JERRY NEGRETE,

STEVE WILLIAMS, and DOES 1

through CC, inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F-06-0368 AWI SMS

ORDER DENYING SPECIAL

MOTION TO STRIKE ORIGINAL

COMPLAINT AS MOOT

On July 5, 2006, Defendants filed a special motion to strike under California’s AntiSLAPP Statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16). Doc. 10. The Anti-SLAPP Statute, complete

with its special procedures, is applicable in federal cases. United States ex rel. Newsham v.

Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir. 1999). On August 14, 2006, before

Plaintiffs had filed any response, Defendants amended their motion. Doc. 15. On August 29,

2006, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint instead of a response to the motion. Doc. 16. 

Under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a), “A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of

course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no

responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the

party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served.” A complaint is a pleading to

Case 1:06-cv-00368-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 08/30/06 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

which a responsive pleading (answer) is required. Defendants have not yet filed an answer. 

Their special motion to strike under California’s Anti-SLAPP law is akin to a Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

12(b) or 12(f) motion, neither of which are considered responsive pleadings. The filing of a valid

amended complaint renders Defendants’ special motion to strike MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00368-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2