Dr. Sumayyah Al Nasser v. Shay Serdy

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 28, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-03582
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 DR. SUMAYYAH AL-NASSER, Case № 2:20-cv-03582-ODW (Ex) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS [9] AND MOTION TO 14 SHAY SERDY et al., ENFORCE [10] AS MOOT 15 Defendants. 16 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Defendants Shay Serdy and Peter E. Barker-Homek filed a motion to dismiss 2|| Plaintiff Sumayyah Al-Nasser’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 3 || Procedure 12(b)(6) and a “Motion to Enforce Federal Rule of Evidence 408,” which 4|| the Court construes as a motion to strike portions of the Complaint. (See Mot. to 5 || Dismiss, ECF No. 9; Mot. to Enforce, ECF No. 10.) On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed 6 || a first amended complaint in lieu of opposing Defendants’ motions. (FAC, ECF No. 18; Notices of Filing, ECF Nos. 19-20.) Defendants do not challenge the 8 | propriety of Plaintiff's filing an amended complaint and request the Court vacate the 9 || pending motions. (See Defs.’ Req., ECF No. 21.) As the pending motion to dismiss 10 || (ECF No. 9) and motion to enforce (ECF No. 10) were based on a complaint that is no 11 | longer operative, the motions are DENIED as MOOT. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San 12 | Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 May 28, 2020 “ 17 . ff i Gieddioid 19 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28