Integrity Medical Product Solutions, LLC v. Seroclinix Corporation

District Court, S.D. California·Decided July 16, 2025·No. 3:22-cv-00785·Unknown

Opinion

INTEGRITY MEDICAL PRODUCT Case No. 22-cv-0785-BAS-BLM SOLUTIONS, LLC, ORDER: Plaintiff, v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THIRD-PARTY SEROCLINIX CORPORATION, et al., COMPLAINT (ECF No. 82); Defendants. AND

(2) TERMINATING AS MOOT SEROCLINIX CORPORATION, et al., MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD- PARTY COMPLAINT Third-Party Plaintiffs, (ECF No. 74) v. HONU MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Third-Party Defendant.

Seroclinix Delaware and Seroclinix Canada filed a Third-Party Complaint against Honu Management Group, LLC. (ECF No. 66.) Honu Management moved to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint on several grounds. (ECF No. 74.) More recently, these parties filed a Joint Motion to Amend the Third-Party Complaint. (ECF No. 82.) Under Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading with the other party’s written consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Consequently, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 82.) Third-Party Plaintiffs shall file their First Amended Third- Party Complaint no later than July 18, 2025. Honu Management shall respond to the amended pleading no later than August 1, 2025. Further, in light of the amended pleading, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT Honu’s Motion to Dismiss the Third-Party Complaint. (ECF No. 74.) See Lacey vy. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“The general rule is that an }amended complaint [overrides] the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” (citation modified)). | We ~ FE | f DATED: July 16, 2025 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Integrity Medical Product Solutions, LLC v. Seroclinix Corporation, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Integrity Medical Product Solutions, LLC v. Seroclinix Corporation (Integrity Medical Product Solutions, LLC v. Seroclinix Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)