Kriley v. Browne

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE ALENA KRILEY, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01176-JHC Plaintiff, ORDER v. CHARLIE BROWNE, JAMIE PHIFER, STAFF MEMBER UNKNOWN NAME, ALL WOMEN'S CARE, Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Charlie Browne, Jamie Phifer and All Women’s Case’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Complaint, filed on April 26, 2022. Dkt. # 16. On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. # 56. In the Ninth Circuit, the filing of “an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). “Courts often apply this rule to motions to dismiss a complaint that has since been superseded and deny such motions as moot.” Bisson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C12-0995JLR, 2012 WL 5866309, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 16, 2012) (collecting cases). Plaintiff’s amended complaint has superseded the original complaint and is now the operative pleading in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint (Dkt. # 16) as moot. See Caldwell v. Boeing Co., No. C17-1741JLR, 2018 WL 2113980, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 8, 2018) (“the court denied Boeing’s first motion to dismiss as moot because Mr. Caldwell’s second amended complaint superseded his original complaint and rendered his original complaint without legal effect.”). If appropriate, Defendants may resubmit any of the arguments 1n their motion; but they must direct any such argument toward the amended complaint and consider any relevant developments in the case. Dated this 13th day of October, 2022. Cok 4 Chur John H. Chun United States District Judge 1]