Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00197/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DENISE SCHMIDT,

Plaintiff

v

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al, 

Defendants. /

No C-05-0197 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff filed her complaint in this case on January 12,

2005. Doc #1 (Compl). Rather than answer, defendants all filed

motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). 

Docs ##7, 12 (Def Mot). A hearing on defendants’ motions is

scheduled for June 16, 2005. Plaintiff, however, filed a first

amended complaint (FAC) on April 26, 2005. Doc #14 (FAC). 

Rule 15(a) states that “a party may amend the party’s

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive

pleading is served * * *.” The Ninth Circuit has made clear that

“[a] motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading within the

Case 3:05-cv-00197-VRW Document 15 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

meaning of Rule 15.” Crum v Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F3d

1129, 1130n3 (9th Cir 2000).

Because plaintiff has properly filed a FAC, defendants’

motions to dismiss the original complaint are moot. Accordingly,

the court TERMINATES defendants’ motions (Docs ##7, 12). Finally,

the court reminds defendants that, pursuant to FRCP 15(a), they

must answer or otherwise plead in response to the FAC on or before

May 10, 2005. The court will keep the June 16, 2005, hearing on

calendar in the event defendants move to dismiss the FAC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00197-VRW Document 15 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 2