Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00343/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00343-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRIME, JUSTICE & AMERICA, INC.,

a California Corporation; and

RAY HRDLICKA, an individual,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

JERRY W. SMITH, in his official

capacity of Sheriff of the

County of Butte, California, 

 Defendant.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:08-cv-00343-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND MOTION

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of judgment, filed on November 2,

2012, (ECF No. 58), and Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment,

filed on November 16, 2012, (ECF No. 60), are denied since the motions

concern Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which is no longer the operative

pleading, since Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on December

18, 2012. 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”); Spokane Cnty. Legal Servs., Inc. v. Legal

Servs. Corp., 614 F.2d 662, 666 (9th Cir. 1980) (approving “deni[al of

Defendant’s] motion for summary judgment on the basis that it was moot”

after “the filing of the second amended complaint”); Williams v. Conn.

1

Case 2:08-cv-00343-TLN-EFB Document 66 Filed 12/21/12 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

Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. CIV 06-2747 PHX RCB, 2008 WL 4183372, at *2 (D.

Ariz. Sept. 10, 2008) (denying as moot summary judgment motion after

filing of amended complaint even though there may “be no meaningful

distinction between the original and the amended complaint, at least

insofar as defendants frame their summary judgment arguments” because

“[t]he court is not free to speculate in that regard”).

Dated: December 21, 2012

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

2

Case 2:08-cv-00343-TLN-EFB Document 66 Filed 12/21/12 Page 2 of 2