Halsey v. Croskrey

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 13, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00371
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 U.S. FDILISETDR IINC TT HCEO URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Jan 13, 2021 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 GERALD HALSEY, BETTY No. 2:20-cv-00371-SMJ 5 HALSEY, GERALD R HALSEY and/or BETTY J HALSEY LIVING 6 TRUST, IRIS MALLORY, and ORDER DENYING MOTION TO LUCIAN LYONS, DISMISS AS MOOT 7 Plaintiffs, 8 v.

9 STEPHEN CROSKREY and BONASA BREAKS RANCH LLC, a Florida 10 limited liability corporation,

11 Defendants.

13 Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants’ FRCP 8(a)(2), FRCP 14 10(b) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim Upon Which 15 Relief Can Be Granted, ECF No. 7. The Court denies that motion as moot. 16 Plaintiffs sued Defendants on October 9, 2020. ECF No. 1. Defendants 17 moved to dismiss on December 22, 2020 and set a hearing without oral argument 18 for January 22, 2021. ECF No. 7. On January 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First 19 Amended Complaint for Trespass, Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Nuisance, 20 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Strict Liability. ECF No. 9. 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend their 2 ||complaint “once as a matter of course within .. . 21 days after service of a motion 3 ||under Rule 12(b).” An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and 4 ||renders it without legal effect. E.g., Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927

5 Cir. 2012); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“As a 6 || general rule, when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, [t]he amended complaint 7 || supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’’) (internal 8 || citation and quotation marks omitted). The parties (and the Court) must therefore 9 || treat the original pleading filed by Plaintiffs as nonexistent. See id. The Court thus 10 ||}denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. See also Huang v. Genesis Glob. 11 || Hardware, Inc., No. 220CV1713JAMKIJINPS, 2020 WL 6318206, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 12 || Oct. 28, 2020) (collecting cases). 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 14 Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, is DENIED AS MOOT. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 16 || provide copies to all counsel.

17 DATED this 13" day of January 2021. 18 (oo 0 nena} _ bemain eee 19 SALVADOR MENDEZA, JR. United States District Judge 20