Kumar v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 5, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02256·Unknown

Opinion

4 Selva Kumar, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02256-CDS-EJY 5 Plaintiff Order Denying as Moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, v. Motion to Compel Arbitration 7 Tata Consultancy Services Limited, 8 Defendant [ECF Nos. 9, 11] 9 10 Plaintiff Selva Kumar filed a first amended complaint on February 5, 2025. ECF No. 13. 11} Because an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint in its entirety, defendant Tata 12] Consultancy Services Limited’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to compel 13} arbitration [ECF No. 9] targeting the original pleading is deemed moot. Ramirez Cnty. of San Bernadino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 2015). Further, because Tata has filed a motion to compel 15] arbitration (ECF No. 18), its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to compel 16] arbitration [ECF No. 1] is also denied as moot. *\ 17 Dated: March 5, 2025 J, / , ke _— ve rates District Judge 20 / 21 22 23 24 25 26

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

Kumar v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, (D. Nev. 2025).

Kumar v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited (Kumar v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sergio Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino
806 F.3d 1002 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)