Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02107/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kristy Joy Bylas
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kristy Joy Bylas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-02107-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 5) and plaintiff's response

(doc. 8). Defendant did not file a reply, and the time for replying has expired. 

This case arises from injuries to plaintiff's hand resulting from a necrotizing infection.

Plaintiff alleges that the care she received from the San Carlos Indian Health Service

Hospital in San Carlos, Arizona constituted medical malpractice. Defendant filed a motion

to dismiss on October 26, 2011, arguing that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. for failure to state a claim. Alternatively, defendant argues that

the complaint must be dismissed for failure to file a certifying statement whether expert

opinion testimony is necessary as required by Arizona law. Plaintiff has since filed the

certificate (doc. 9). 

On November 18, 2011, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (doc. 10). A party

may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service of

a Rule 12(b) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). An amended complaint supercedes the

Case 2:11-cv-02107-FJM Document 12 Filed 12/01/11 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 -

original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Because

plaintiff's amendment was timely, this action is now proceeding under the first amended

complaint and defendant's motion to dismiss is rendered moot.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness

(doc. 5). 

DATED this 1st day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-02107-FJM Document 12 Filed 12/01/11 Page 2 of 2