Johnson v. United States of America

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA 7 CASSANDRA F. JOHNSON, CASE NO. C21-5245 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 9 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. 11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant the United States of America’s 14 motion to dismiss. Dkt. 10. 15 On June 10, 2021, the Government moved to dismiss Plaintiff Cassandra 16 Johnson’s claims for negligence, informed consent, and corporate negligence. Id. Johnson 17 then filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint, dismissing her claims for 18 negligence and corporate negligence and providing more factual basis for her informed 19 consent claim. Dkt. 13. The Government did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 20 amend, and the Court granted the unopposed motion. Dkt. 14. The Government has since 21 answered the amended complaint. Dkt. 17. 22 1 It is well established that an “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 2 being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474

3 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 4 Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927–28 (9th Cir. 2012). Where a motion to dismiss targets 5 a complaint that has been superseded by an amended complaint, the court should deem 6 the motion to dismiss moot. Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 7 (9th Cir. 2015). Upon the filing of Johnson’s amended complaint, the Government’s 8 motion to dismiss her initial complaint became moot. Accordingly, the Government’s

9 motion to dismiss, Dkt. 10, is DENIED as moot. 11 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2021. A 12 13 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 14 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22