Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01786/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01786-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.J.D.L.T., a minor, and 

Z.D.L.T., a minor, 

individually and as decedent 

Juan De La Torre’s successors 

in interest, through their 

Guardian Ad Litem, VIVICA 

GONZALEZ; VIVICA GONZALEZ, an 

individual; and GRACIELA 

ARELLANO, an individual,

Plaintiffs

*,

v.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 

a publicly traded Delaware 

corporation; SWIFT 

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, 

a Delaware Limited Liability 

Company; SWIFT TRANSPORTATION 

CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability 

Company; INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT 

LEASING, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company; 

EDWARD GREER, JR.; an 

individual; SWIFT LEASING 

CO., LLC (DOE NO. 1); FIERRO 

TRUCKING II, LLC (DOE NO. 2); 

and DOES 4 through 50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD

ORDER DENYING DISMISSAL MOTION 

AS MOOT

On September 4, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to 

dismiss portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint under 

 

* The caption has been amended to utilize only each minor Plaintiff’s

initials, as prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3) and Local 

Rule 140(a)(i). The parties shall comply with these rules in all future 

filings. 

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 10/02/13 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 5.) However, 

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 

14-1) by stipulation, which is now the operative pleading. See

Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 

1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating “an amended pleading 

supersedes the original”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2)(stating “a party may amend its pleading . . . with the 

opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave”). 

Since the referenced dismissal motion does not address 

the operative pleading, it is denied as moot.

Dated: October 2, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 2