Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01525/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01525-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN E. NEWGENT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1525 WQH (WMC)

ORDER

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo”)

Motion to Dismiss, filed July 20, 2009 (Doc. # 4).

On September 4, 2009, Plaintiff Susan E. Newgent filed a First Amended Complaint

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 . . . .”). Wells Fargo argues Plaintiff was not permitted to file a First Amended

Complaint as of right because the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 4) is a responsive

pleading (Doc. # 9 at 6). However, “a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading within

the meaning of Rule 15(a).” Rick-Mik Enters. v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 532 F.3d 963, 977 (9th

Cir. 2008). Plaintiff therefore had “an absolute right to amend.” See id. Once filed, an

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint in its entirety. See London v. Coopers

& Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, addressing

the original Complaint, became moot once the First Amended Complaint was filed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 4) is DENIED AS

MOOT.

DATED: October 13, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01525-WQH-WMC Document 13 Filed 10/13/09 Page 1 of 1