Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04787/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04787-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-04787-LHK 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS

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

LISA FRANCESCA FERRARI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATURAL PARTNER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-04787-LHK 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 15

On October 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action, against 

Defendants Natural Partner, Inc.; ProThera, Inc.; Klaire Labs; and Soho Flordis International

(collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No. 1. On February 5, 2016, Defendants ProThera, Inc.; Klaire 

Labs; and Soho Flordis International filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 8 at 1. On February 25, 2016, Defendant 

Natural Partner, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(e). ECF No. 15 at 1. 

On February 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 

24. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) states that “[a] party may amend its pleading 

once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under [Federal Rule of 

Case 5:15-cv-04787-LHK Document 34 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-CV-04787-LHK 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS

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

Civil Procedure] 12(b), (e), or (f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Because Plaintiffs filed the FAC 

on February 25, 2016, which is twenty days after Defendants Pro Thera, Inc.; Klaire Labs; and 

Soho Flordis International filed their motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs were allowed to file the FAC 

without leave of the Court. 

No Defendant has yet filed a responsive pleading or motion to the FAC. On March 14, 

2016, the parties stipulated to granting Plaintiffs’ leave to file a Second Amended Complaint

(“SAC”). ECF No. 32. The Court granted this stipulation on March 15, 2016, with a deadline to 

file the SAC by April 15, 2016. ECF No. 33. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Defendants 

must file a responsive motion or pleading to the SAC within 30 days after the SAC is filed. 

Because Plaintiffs have filed the FAC and will, by April 15, 2016, file a SAC, Defendants’

motions to dismiss the original complaint are moot. As the Ninth Circuit explained in Ramirez v. 

County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015), an “amended complaint 

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Consequently, any 

motions to dismiss the prior, now “non-existent” complaint must be “deemed moot.” Id.; accord 

Gidding v. Anderson, 2008 WL 2168398, *5 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2008). Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss are therefore DENIED AS MOOT, and the April 28, 2016 hearing date for Defendants’

motion to dismiss is hereby VACATED. The initial case management conference, currently 

scheduled for April 28, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., remains as set. Although Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss are moot, the SAC must nonetheless cure the deficiencies identified therein, or the SAC 

may be dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04787-LHK Document 34 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2