Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03797/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03797-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLEE A. NELSON, et. al.,

Plaintiffs

 v.

RAYAH LEVY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-3797 MMC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Jessica Jacobson’s “Motion to Dismiss Under

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) or for a More Definite Statement Under F.R.C.P. 12(e),” filed August 8,

2016. On August 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

A party may amend a pleading “once as a matter of course 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.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “[A]n amended pleading

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Bullen v. De

Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 947 (1957).

In the instant case, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint within 21 days after

service of defendant’s motion to dismiss, and, consequently, were entitled to amend as of

right. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

//

Case 3:16-cv-03797-LB Document 33 Filed 09/07/16 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

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES as moot defendant’s motion, and VACATES

the September 30, 2016, hearing scheduled thereon.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03797-LB Document 33 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2