Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01917/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01917-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Martha E. Payan; Xavier Payan, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Phoenix; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1917-PHX-JAT

ORDER

In this Court’s order of May 4, 2010, at footnote 2, the Court stated the following:

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. #25) includes by reference all

allegations made in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint (Doc. #1). This order will

refer in text to the two documents as “the Complaint,” but will cite to them

individually as necessary.

Doc. #40.

Obviously for purposes of considering the City of Phoenix and the Phoenix Police

Department’s motion to dismiss, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to incorporate by reference their

prior complaint. However, typically incorporation by reference of prior complaints not

permitted. Specifically, 

“An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth v.

Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be ‘complete in itself without reference to

the prior or superceded pleading;’ Local Rule 15-220.”

Case 2:09-cv-01917-JAT Document 48 Filed 06/11/10 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 -

Dowdy v. Raman, 2008 WL 1901330, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2008). The District of Arizona’s Civil

Local Rules are consistent with Dowdy. L.R.Civ. 15.1 (“The proposed amended pleading

is not to incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading, including exhibits.”).

In this case, because the Court gave Plaintiffs the benefit of the allegations in both

complaints in considering the City of Phoenix and the Phoenix Police Department’s motion

to dismiss, the Court will not amend the prior Order. However, going forward in this case,

the Court will hold Plaintiffs to the Local Rules, and will treat the amended complaint as

completely superseding the original complaint. Further, to the extent the May 4, 2010 Order

implied that in this or any other case the Court would not require the parties to comply with

the Local Rules, that implication in the Order is specifically rejected.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that for purposes of considering the motion to dismiss filed by

Austin, Brouwer, Congero, Gunnels, and Jordan, the Court will consider only the claims and

allegations preserved in the Amended Complaint (Doc. #25). If Plaintiffs wish to proceed

on claims or allegations from the original complaint, Plaintiffs must file a motion to amend

and, consistent with Local Rule Civil 15.1 attach the proposed amended complaint. Again,

this proposed amended complaint must not incorporate by reference any of the prior

complaints.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01917-JAT Document 48 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 2