Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00157/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00157-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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 - 07cv157

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIVEMEPOWER CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv157 WQH(RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO DISMISS AS MOOT

(Doc. # 3)

vs.

PACE COMPUMETRICS, INC.; TERRY

RESNICK; JODY RESNICK; RONALD

S. BERG; and RANDOLPH WILLIS,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is Defendant Pace Compumetrics, Inc.’s “Motion to Dismiss

Complaint and Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint” (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. # 3),

filed March 14, 2007. On March 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Verified First Amended Complaint,

as was their right pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 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....”); see also Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129,

1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A motion to dismiss is not a ‘responsive pleading’ within the

meaning of Rule 15.”). Once filed, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint

in its entirety. See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, addressing the original Complaint, became moot once the

Case 3:07-cv-00157-WQH-RBB Document 18 Filed 03/27/07 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 - 07cv157

Verified First Amended Complaint was filed. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

# 3) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

DATED: March 27, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00157-WQH-RBB Document 18 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 2