Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06086/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06086-1/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

“A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time

before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive

pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party

may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY A. HOWELL and SHELLEY H.K.

HOWELL,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

KENNETH VITORELO, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C 07-6086 MMC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO HAVE

AVERMENTS IN ANSWER DEEMED

ADMISSIONS AND STRIKE

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiffs “Motion to Have Averments in Defendants’ Answer

Deemed Admissions and to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses,” filed January 3,

2008. On January 9, 2008, defendants filed an Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants’ filing of an amended

answer was timely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).1

 “[A]n amended pleading supersedes the

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

2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 947 (1957).

Here, plaintiffs’ motion challenges the adequacy of the contents of a pleading that,

Case 3:07-cv-06086-MMC Document 16 Filed 01/18/08 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

as a result of the recent amendment thereof, has become “non-existent.” Accordingly, the

Court hereby DENIES as moot plaintiffs’ motion, and VACATES the hearing scheduled for

February 8, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06086-MMC Document 16 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2