Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01582/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01582-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1144(a) E.R.I.S.A supersedes state law employee benefits

---

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

A motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading.” See Crum v. Circus Circus

Enterprises, 231 F. 3d 1129, 1130 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2000).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOANN BLAKE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA

SEVERANCE PLAN and BRUCE G.

BODAKEN,

Defendants /

No. C 06-1582 MMC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANT BLUE SHIELD OF

CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Blue Shield of California’s (“Blue Shield”) motion to

dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs’ initial

complaint. On April 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

A party may amend a pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).1

 “[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). Further,

the FAC no longer names Blue Shield as a defendant; rather, the FAC names a severance

plan, specifically, the Blue Shield of California Severance Plan, and an individual

Case 3:06-cv-01582-MMC Document 11 Filed 04/06/06 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

Blue Shield’s motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 remains as scheduled on the

Court’s May 5, 2006 hearing calendar. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384,

395 (1990) (holding motion under Rule 11 may be heard following dismissal of action).

2

defendant, Bruce G. Bodaken, as the administrator of the severance plan.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES as moot Blue Shield’s motion to dismiss, and

VACATES the hearing scheduled for May 5, 2006.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01582-MMC Document 11 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2