Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02414/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02414-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

-1- 15CV2414 

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN LILLIG, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

BROOKS AUTOMATION, INC., 

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV2414 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT 

[Doc. No. 6]

 On November 2, 2015, Defendant Brooks Automation, Inc. filed a motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff John Lillig’s complaint. [Doc. No. 6.] On November 10, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed his First Amended Complaint.1

 [Doc. No. 7.] Accordingly, the complaint which 

Defendant seeks to dismiss is no longer the operative pleading in this action, as an 

amended complaint supersedes 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). 

// 

// 

// 

// 

                                                                

1

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a 

matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(1)(B). 

Case 3:15-cv-02414-MMA-BLM Document 8 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 2
 -2- 15CV2414 

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

Thus, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

complaint. [Doc. No. 6.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015

 _____________________________ 

 Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02414-MMA-BLM Document 8 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 2