Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00406/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00406-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange 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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jennifer Burritt, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

NutraCea, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-00406-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the consolidated amended

complaint (doc. 40), defendants’ response (doc. 43), and plaintiffs’ reply (doc. 48). We also

have before us motions to dismiss by defendants Crow, Edson, and NutraCea (respectively

doc. 35, 36, & 37), plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a joint response and joint response

(doc. 42 & 47), and defendants’ replies (doc. 50, 54, & 51).

Under Rule 15(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party may amend a pleading outside of an

amendment as a matter of course “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the

court’s leave.” We will grant leave “when justice so requires.” Id. A motion for leave to

amend may be denied for undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant

or for undue prejudice to the opposing party. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316

F.3d 104, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

Case 2:09-cv-00406-FJM Document 57 Filed 09/25/09 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Defendants oppose the motion for leave to amend on the grounds that the timing of

the motion in relation to the pending motions to dismiss indicates bad faith and undue delay

and that the costs of additional motions to dismiss would be unduly prejudicial. Defendants

also assert that much of the information in the proposed amended complaint was available

previously and that granting the motion would disrupt the deadlines set by our Rule 16

scheduling order (doc. 28). 

Plaintiffs contend that leave to amend is justified because the proposed amended

complaint contains new information first discovered through a source who came forward on

August 4, 2009. Plaintiffs also point out correctly that the deadline for filing motions to

amend the complaint under our scheduling order is December 1, 2009.

We find insufficient evidence of undue delay or bad faith in the timing of plaintiffs’

motion to amend. And the costs of additional motions to dismiss at this stage do not rise to

the level of undue prejudice. We grant plaintiffs’ motion to amend the consolidated amended

complaint (doc. 40). 

Once a complaint has been amended, the amended complaint supersedes the prior

complaint and the latter is “treated thereafter as non-existent.” Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55,

57 (9th Cir. 1967) (citations omitted). Because the plaintiffs have lodged an amended

consolidated complaint, the motions to dismiss by defendants Crow, Edson, and NutraCea

are now moot and are denied on that basis. Plaintiffs’ motion to file a joint response is also

moot and denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

amend (doc. 40) and DENYING plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a joint response (doc. 42).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING defendant Crow’s motion to dismiss (doc.

35), DENYING defendant Edson’s motion to dismiss (doc. 36), and DENYING defendant

NutraCea’s motion to dismiss (doc. 37). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED amending the Rule 16 Scheduling Order (doc. 28)

only as follows. Paragraph 1A is amended such that any motions to dismiss shall be filed no

later than October 7, 2009 with a normal briefing schedule under LRCiv 7.2. Paragraph 1B

Case 2:09-cv-00406-FJM Document 57 Filed 09/25/09 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

is amended such that all initial disclosures shall be made no later than January 4, 2010.

Paragraph 3 is amended such that there shall be no further amended complaints. Paragraph

3A is amended such that motions for class certification shall be filed no later than February

1, 2010. The parties are advised that these amendments shall have no effect on the remainder

of the Rule 16 order.

The clerk shall file the lodged amended consolidated complaint under LRCiv 15.1(c).

DATED this 24th day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00406-FJM Document 57 Filed 09/25/09 Page 3 of 3