Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01758/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01758-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pinkhas and Isabella Brik, husband and

wife, and on behalf of Igor Brik, a

protected adult, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Maricopa County; Betty Adams; Joseph

and Ava Arpaio; City of Phoenix; Jack

and Connie Harris; Shawn and Jane Doe

Henry; and Craig and Jane Doe Scott, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1758-PHX-DGC

ORDER

After the removal of this action (Dkt. #1), Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint

(Dkt. #10). Defendant Maricopa County filed an answer and motion to dismiss. Dkt. ##13,

14. Plaintiffs then sought leave to file a second amended complaint in order to address the

issues raised by the motion to dismiss. Dkt. #18. The Court granted the motion to amend

as unopposed. Dkt. #24. Because a second amended complaint has been filed (Dkt. #26),

the Court will deny as moot the County’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

IT IS ORDERED that Maricopa County’s motion to dismiss the first amended

complaint (Dkt. ##13, 14) is denied as moot. 

DATED this 8th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01758-DGC Document 34 Filed 12/08/09 Page 1 of 1