Goodrich v. Cross River Bank

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JULIA GREENFIELD, Case No. 21-cv-09296-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 9 v. CLARIFY EFFECT OF JULY 26, 2022, ORDER; DEEMING PLAINTIFF'S 10 CROSS RIVER BANK, MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE WITHDRAWN Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff Julia Greenfield's Administrative Motion, filed August 1, 14 2022, "to Clarify the Effect of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order." Defendant Cross River 15 Bank has filed opposition. Having read and considered the parties' respective written 16 submissions, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and provides the following 17 clarification. 18 On July 7, 2022, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Dismiss Defendant Cross River Bank's 19 Counterclaim and Strike Its Answer" ("Motion to Dismiss/Strike"), which Motion presently 20 is set for hearing August 26, 2022. On July 26, 2022, the Court granted defendant's 21 "Motion to Strike Class Allegations" and afforded plaintiff leave to file a First Amended 22 Complaint ("FAC"). By the instant Administrative Motion, plaintiff seeks clarification as to 23 whether the FAC, which she subsequently timely filed on August 15, 2022, moots her 24 Motion to Dismiss/Strike. 25 As defendant acknowledges, it will file an amended answer to address the new 26 allegations in the FAC. (See Def.'s Opp. at 2:20-21.) Upon the filing of such amended 27 answer, the current answer will be superseded. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th 1 thereafter as non-existent"); Goldstone v. Payne, 94 F.2d 855, 856 (2nd Cir. 1938) 2 (noting "amended answer supersede[s] the original answer"). As a result, the Motion to 3 || Dismiss/Strike will, at that point, become moot. Under the circumstances, the Court finds 4 || it appropriate, in the interests of avoiding an unnecessary expenditure of funds and time, 5 || to discontinue briefing on plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss/Strike.! 6 Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss/Strike is hereby deemed withdrawn, 7 || without prejudice to refiling after defendant files its amended answer. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || Dated: August 16, 2022 . INE M. CHESNEY 11 United States District Judge 12

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Although defendant has filed opposition to the Motion to Dismiss/Strike, plaintiff 28 has not filed a reply thereto.