Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00430/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00430-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.T., a minor, by and through 

her guardian ad litem 

PENEUILA NUU, individually 

and as successor-in-interest 

to Decedent MATAUTU NUU; 

PENEUILA NUU; MATAUAO NUU; 

KARISIMASI NUU; K.O., a 

minor, by and through her 

guardian ad litem, DANIEL 

OJEDA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ERIC JONES, individually; 

JOHN GRIFFIN, individually; 

THOMAS HESLIN, individually; 

JAMES MANOR, individually, 

JASON SCHAFFER, individually 

and Stockton police officers 

DOES 1-25, inclusive,

Defendants.

*

No. 2:15-cv-00430-GEB-KJN

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

DISMISSAL MOTION AS MOOT

The pending motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended 

Complaint is denied as moot since Plaintiffs filed a Second 

Amended Complaint which is now the operative pleading. See Hal 

Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 

 

* The caption has been modified to reflect the parties named in 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, which no longer names City of Stockton 

as a Defendant, and also no longer names Eric Jones, John Griffin, Thomas 

Heslin, James Manor and Jason Schaffer in their official capacities. 

Case 2:15-cv-00430-TLN-DB Document 19 Filed 07/30/15 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

1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating “an amended pleading supersedes the 

original”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)(stating “a party 

may amend its pleading . . . with the opposing party’s written

consent or the court’s leave”). 

Dated: July 29, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00430-TLN-DB Document 19 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 2