Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00204/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is not a responsive pleading within

the meaning Rule 15(a). See e.g., Shaver v. Operating Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust

Fund, 332 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2003). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clarence Hill, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

United States Postal Service, John E.

Porter, Post Mater General, USA,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0204-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Clarence Hill’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Amend

Complaint. (Doc. 12) 

 Rule 15(a) provides that a “party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter

of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. In the present

case, no responsive pleading has been served; thus, Plaintiff retains an automatic right to

amend the pleadings single time.1

 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 12)

is GRANTED. 

Case 2:07-cv-00204-SMM Document 14 Filed 07/12/07 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

The filing of an amended complaint replaces the previous complaint. Thus, the Court

finds it appropriate to deny the motion to dismiss with leave to refile if necessary, based on

the Amended Complaint. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th 2001); Hal Roach Studios,

Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989); Bullen v. De

Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956). 

- 2 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the Proposed First

Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A to Doc. 12. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with

leave to refile, if necessary, based on the First Amended Complaint.2

 (Doc. 11)

DATED this 12th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00204-SMM Document 14 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 2