(PS) Sharma v. Griswold

E.D. California

(PS) Sharma v. Griswold

DecidedOctober 30, 2019

Docket2:19-cv-01731

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Sharma v. Griswold ((PS) Sharma v. Griswold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS) Sharma v. Griswold, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NARENDRA SHARMA, No. 2:19–cv–1731–MCE–KJN (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 13 v. (ECF Nos. 5, 6) 14 RICHARDSON C. GRISWOLD, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant on September 3, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On 18 October 10, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) Seven days later, Plaintiff filed a 19 First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows for a 20 complaint to be amended “once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion 21 under Rule 12(b) . . . .”). This amendment as a matter of course renders an original complaint 22 null. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen a plaintiff files an 23 amended complaint, the amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated 24 thereafter as non-existent.”). 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss 26 (ECF No. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT. 27 //// 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | Dated: October 29, 2019 ; Frese Arn 4 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE S | shar.1731 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NARENDRA SHARMA, No. 2:19–cv–1731–MCE–KJN (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 13 v. (ECF Nos. 5, 6) 14 RICHARDSON C. GRISWOLD, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant on September 3, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On 18 October 10, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) Seven days later, Plaintiff filed a 19 First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows for a 20 complaint to be amended “once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion 21 under Rule 12(b) . . . .”). This amendment as a matter of course renders an original complaint 22 null. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen a plaintiff files an 23 amended complaint, the amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated 24 thereafter as non-existent.”). 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss 26 (ECF No. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT. 27 //// 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | Dated: October 29, 2019 ; Frese Arn 4 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE S | shar.1731 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Sharma v. Griswold, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-sharma-v-griswold-caed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack