Barnaba v. County of San Diego

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXIS ANN BARNABA, as guardian Case No.: 23-cv-01622-AJB-SBC ad litem for minor child and successor-in -interest A.N.Y.; and YVETTE YOUNG, ORDER: Plaintiffs, (1) DISMISSING MIKE BARNETT BY OPERATION OF THE THIRD v. AMENDED COMPLAINT;

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., (2) DENYING AS MOOT MIKE BARNETT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; Defendants. AND

(3) TERMINATING MIKE BARNETT FROM THE ACTION.

(Doc. No. 42)

In response to the Court’s July 24, 2025 Order, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) against “COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, KELLY MARTINEZ, THERESA ADAMS-HYDAR, WILLIAM GORE, ERIKA FRIERSON and DOES 1 through 6, inclusive.” (Doc. No. 51 at 1.) “As a general rule, when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) Gnternal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Because Plaintiffs no longer name Mike Barnett (“Barnett”) as a defendant in operative TAC, the Court DISMISSES Barnett from this action and DENIES AS MOOT his pending motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 42). See id. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect that Barnett has been terminated from this action. Dated: August 4, 2025

United States District Judge 1]