1

 The plaintiffs in this action include Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in

Washington (“CREW”) and CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan.

2

 Rule 15(a)(1) was amended in 2009 to allow a plaintiff to amend its complaint “as a

matter of course” within 21 days of the service of a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), (e), or

(f). Plaintiffs here filed their amended complaint today, October 28, well within the 21-day

period for amending their complaint as a matter of course after service of defendant’s motion on

October 12, 2010.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND :

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON :

and MELANIE SLOAN :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01350 (RMC)

:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, :

Defendant. :

____________________________________:

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending before the Court is the motion of defendant Federal Election Commission

(“FEC”), made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), to dismiss plaintiffs’1 complaint

of August 11, 2010. Since the filing of defendant’s motion, plaintiffs have filed an amended

complaint as of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).2

 The filing of the amended

complaint supercedes the original and renders it a nullity. See, e.g., Purkey v. Marberry, 2010

U.S. App. LEXIS 14362 (7th Cir. 2010); Klyce v. Ramirez, 852 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1988); Barnes

v. Birds Eye Foods LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69579, *2-3 (W.D. MI. 2010) (amended

complaint, filed of right within 21 days of service of motion under 12(b), “supercedes the

original complaint, which becomes a nullity.”). As a necessary consequence, defendant’s motion

Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 8 Filed 10/28/10 Page 1 of 2
2

to dismiss the now superseded complaint is moot and must be denied. See Barnes, 2010 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 69579 at *3 (“An amended complaint filed after a motion to dismiss has been filed

renders the motion to dismiss moot.”), citing Bancoult v. McNamara, 214 F.R.D. 5, 13 (D.D.C.

2003).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny defendant’s

motion to dismiss as moot.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Anne L. Weismann

D.C. Bar No. 298190

Melanie Sloan

D.C. Bar No. 434584

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics

 in Washington

1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone: (202) 408-5565

Fax: (202) 588-5020

Aweismann@citizensforethics.org

Dated: October 28, 2010

Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 8 Filed 10/28/10 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND :

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON :

and MELANIE SLOAN :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01350 (RMC)

:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, :

Defendant. :

____________________________________:

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of this date, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Federal Election Commission’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

Dated: ________________ _______________________________

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER

United States District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 8-1 Filed 10/28/10 Page 1 of 1