Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01299-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BONITA HEARN HILL, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

JAMES LOWE, MONICA STEVENS, )

CATHY PEPPERS, McCLATCHY )

NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE )

FRESNO BEE, and DOES 1-10 )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV F 05-1299 AWI DLB

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the Ninth and Tenth Causes of

Action in Plaintiff’s complaint, and in the alternative, a Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the

Ninth Cause of Action. None of the Defendants have filed an answer in this case. On February

1, 2006, this Court signed an order vacating the hearing on Defendants’s motion and taking the

matter under submission in light of Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition or notice of nonopposition as required by Local Rule 78-230(c). Plaintiff, however, filed an Amended

Complaint at 4:59 p.m. on February 1, 2006. 

Under Rule 15(a), “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. Pro. 15(a); Crum v. Circus Circus

Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). “A motion to dismiss is not a ‘responsive

pleading’ within the meaning of Rule 15.” Crum, 231 F.3d at 1130 n.3; New v. Armour

Pharmaceutical Co., 67 F.3d 716, 722 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Morrison v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d

1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, where a motion to dismiss is filed instead of an answer, Rule

15(a) allows a plaintiff to amend the original complaint once as a matter of course without the

need of obtaining leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a); Crum, 231 F.3d at 1130 n.3. An

“amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” 

Case 1:05-cv-01299-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 02/03/06 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

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57

(9th Cir. 1967). 

Here, the Defendants did not file answers, but instead filed a motion to dismiss. As no

prior amended complaints have been filed, Plaintiff was entitled to file her amended complaint as

a matter of course under Rule 15(a). The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint,

and the original complaint is treated as non-existent. Since Defendants’s motion attacks

Plaintiff’s original and now “non-existent” complaint, Defendants’s motion is now moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’s motion to dismiss is

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01299-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 2