Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

A motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading.” See Crum v. Circus Circus

Enterprises, 231 F. 3d 1129, 1130 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2000).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SLEZAK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TCIF, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-05-3537 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

DEEMING FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT FILED; DENYING AS

MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS;

DENYING REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF

DEFAULT

Before the Court is plaintiff Richard Slezak’s request for an extension of time to file

his First Amended Complaint. Good cause appearing, the request is hereby GRANTED,

and the First Amended Complaint is deemed FILED as of March 24, 2006.

Also before the Court is defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.’s motion, filed

February 2, 2006, to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint, and defendant TCIF, LLC’s

motion, filed March 24, 2006, to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint. Because a party may

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

served,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a),1

 and because “an amended pleading supersedes the

original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent,” see Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 29 Filed 03/29/06 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

F. 2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 947 (1957), the Court hereby DENIES

as moot the motions to dismiss the original complaint.

Finally, before the Court is plaintiff’s request, filed March 15, 2006, for entry of

default against TCIF, LLC. As discussed above, the instant action now proceeds on the

First Amended Complaint, and the time to respond to the First Amended Complaint has not

yet passed. Accordingly, the request for entry of default is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 29 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2