Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02010/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02010-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-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 * This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KERRY ATKINSON, )

) 02:04-cv-2010-GEB-JFM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, AT&T LONG TERM DISABILITY,)

PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On October 24, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to

file the Amended Complaint attached to Plaintiff’s motion. Defendants

have not opposed the motion. Since Defendants’ non-opposition is

construed as acquiescence to Plaintiff’s request, it is not necessary

to determine if Plaintiff has satisfied the standards applicable to

her motion. Accordingly, the motion is granted and Plaintiff has

until November 23, 2005, to file and serve the referenced Amended

Complaint.

On the same day that Plaintiff filed her motion for leave to

amend, both Plaintiff and Defendants filed motions for summary

judgment. These motions for summary judgment concern the original

Case 2:04-cv-02010-GEB -JFM Document 47 Filed 11/16/05 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

complaint, filed on September 27, 2004. While Plaintiff indicates

that the Amended Complaint only corrects “a technical deficiency” in

the original complaint, “[an] amended complaint supersedes the

original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). The Court is unwilling to

consider and rule on motions directed toward a complaint which will

become “non-existent” when Plaintiff files her Amended Complaint. 

Therefore, the motions for summary judgment filed on October 24, 2005,

will be deemed withdrawn upon the filing of the Amended Complaint. 

To give the parties an opportunity to file amended motions

for summary judgment addressing the Amended Complaint, the Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order is amended as follows: The last hearing

date for motions for summary judgment is extended to January 9, 2006,

at 9:00 a.m. The final pretrial conference is re-set for

March 6, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. Trial will remain as set.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: November 15, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02010-GEB -JFM Document 47 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2