Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00869-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Conversion

---

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

JAMES W. FOWLER COMPANY, an )

Organ corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

PATTERSON MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. )

dba PATTERSON MOTOR FREIGHT )

dba PATTERSON MOTORFREIGHT )

INCORPORATED dba PATTERSON )

NOBLES MOTORFREIGHT, a )

California corporation, PATTERSON )

HOLDINGS, LLC, a California limited )

liability company; and EDWARD G. )

PATTERSON, an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-0869 AWI SMS

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 25,

2006 HEARING DATE 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STRIKE AS MOOT 

(Documents #12, #13 & #15)

BACKGROUND

On August 14, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint. On

August 18, 2006, Defendants filed an amended motion to strike. The motion to strike was set for

oral argument to be heard on September 25, 2006.

On August 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On August 28, 2006,

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to strike. Plaintiff points out that the complaint has

been amended.

DISCUSSION

 Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a motion to strike any time

before responding to a pleading. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

Case 1:06-cv-00869-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 09/19/06 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

that a “party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served. . . . Otherwise a party may amend only by leave of court. . . .” A

motion to strike is not a “responsive pleading” that would terminate a plaintiff’s right to amend

the complaint. Cf Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir.1995) (motion to dismiss);

Schreiber Distrib. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.1986) (motion to

dismiss). Because Defendants did not file a responsive pleading, but only a motion to strike,

Plaintiff did not need leave of court to file an amended complaint. See Allwaste, Inc. v. Hecht, 65

F.3d 1523, 1530 (9 Cir. 1995); Doe, 58 F.3d at 497. Once filed, the amended complaint th

superseded the original complaint in its entirety, and the court will proceed with the amended

complaint. See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811 (9th Cir.1981); Loux v. Rhay, 375

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Defendants’ motion addressing the original complaint became moot

once the amended complaint was filed. To avoid any unnecessary work by the parties and the

court, the court will deny the motion directed at the original complaint as moot at this time, and

allow Defendants the opportunity to file another motion or any other response to the amended

complaint authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ORDER 

Accordingly, the court orders that:

1. The previously set hearing date of September 25, 2006, is VACATED, and the parties

shall not appear at that time;

2. Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED as moot;

3. Defendants SHALL FILE an answer or other response to the amended complaint within

thirty days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00869-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2