Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04628/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04628-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-04628-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT (AMENDED)

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

DARYL DEVINCENZI,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-04628-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS AS MOOT (AMENDED)1

Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 17, 24

On September 13, 2016, Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) 

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 8. On September 30, 2016, Defendant 

Roundpoint Mortgage Company (“Roundpoint”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. 

ECF No. 17. Plaintiff did not file oppositions to these motions to dismiss. Instead, on October 3, 

2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 19.

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 once within “21 days after service of 

 

1

This Order modifies and supersedes the Court’s November 3, 2016 Order [ECF No. 23]. The 

November 3, 2016 Order is hereby vacated, and Plaintiff’s November 3, 2016 motion for leave to 

file motion for reconsideration is denied as moot.

Case 5:16-cv-04628-LHK Document 25 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-CV-04628-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT (AMENDED)

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

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

is earlier.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s amendment on October 3, 2016 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 

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 Experian’s and Roundpoint’s motions to dismiss the original complaint as moot and 

vacates the hearing scheduled for December 1, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

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

identified in Experian’s and Roundpoint’s motions to dismiss. Thus, if the Court grants any future 

motion to dismiss the amended complaint based on these deficiencies, the Court will dismiss the 

amended complaint with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04628-LHK Document 25 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 2