Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06290/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06290-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Torts to Land

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-06290-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CAMEO BURTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-CV-06290-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AS MOOT

Re: Dkt. No. 11

On November 23, 2016, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) filed a 

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the

motion to dismiss. Instead, on December 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 

13.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a)(1)(B), if a pleading requires a 

responsive pleading, a party may amend the original pleading within “21 days after service of a 

responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is 

earlier.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s December 9, 2016 amendment was an amendment as of right.

An “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as nonexistent.” Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.1997) overruled on other 

Case 5:16-cv-06290-LHK Document 14 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-CV-06290-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

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

grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012). For this reason, after an 

amendment, “pending motions concerning the original complaint must be denied as moot.” Hylton 

v. Anytime Towing, 2012 WL 1019829, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012). Therefore, the Court 

DENIES Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss as moot and vacates the hearing scheduled for February 

9, 2017.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff has now amended the complaint once in light of the deficiencies 

identified in Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss. Thus, if the Court grants any future motion to 

dismiss the amended complaint based on these same deficiencies, the Court will dismiss the 

amended complaint with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06290-LHK Document 14 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 2