Multiscan Technologies USA LLC

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MULTISCAN TECHNOLOGIES USA CASE NO. C23-5978 BHS 8 LLC, et al., ORDER 9 Plaintiffs, v. 10 AVNER COHN, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant Avner Cohn’s motion to 14 dismiss, Dkt. 7, and on plaintiff Multiscan Technologies’ motion for leave to file a 15 substantive surreply, Dkt. 21. 16 In response to Cohn’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 7, Multiscan filed an amended 17 complaint. Dkt. 9. An “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being 18 treated thereafter as non-existent.” Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th 19 Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927– 20 28 (9th Cir. 2012). When a motion to dismiss targets a complaint that has been 21 22 1 superseded by an amended complaint, the court should deem the motion to dismiss moot. 2 Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015).

3 Accordingly, Cohn’s first motion to dismiss, Dkt. 7, is DENIED as moot. 4 Cohn’s second motion to dismiss, Dkt. 10 (aimed at Multiscan’s amended 5 complaint, Dkt. 9) will be addressed in a separate order. In the meantime, Multiscan’s 6 motion for leave to file a substantive surreply to Cohn’s reply, Dkt. 24, filed in support of 7 his second motion to dismiss, is GRANTED, and Multiscan may file the brief attached to 8 its motion at Dkt. 21-1.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated this 18th day of March, 2024. A 11 12 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 13 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22