Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01132/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01132-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange 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 1

A motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading.” See Crum v. Circus Circus

Enterprises, 231 F. 3d 1129, 1130 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2000).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIXON R. DOLL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STARS HOLDING COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 05-1132 MMC

ORDER DENYING CHENERY

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

AS MOOT

Before the Court is the Chenery Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint

pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 8,

2005, before any defendant filed a responsive pleading to the original complaint, plaintiff

filed a First Amended Complaint.

A plaintiff may amend its pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).1

 “[A]n amended pleading

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Bullen v. De

Bretteville, 239 F. 2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 947 (1957).

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the Chenery Defendant’s motion to dismiss

as moot, and VACATES the hearing scheduled for August 5, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge