Raquinio v. Kohanaiki Community Association

Opinion

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL NO. 21-00255 LEK-WRP CASE NAME: Noe Raquinio vs. Kohanaiki Community Association et al.,

JUDGE: Leslie E. Kobayashi DATE: 10/6/2021

COURT ACTION: EO: COURT ORDER REGARDING THE EFFECT OF PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ON THE MOTIONS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT

On August 19, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Noe Raquinio (“Plaintiff”) filed his Amended Complaint for a Civil Case and his “Amended Complaint 42-USCS-1983 for ‘Negligence’” (collectively “First Amended Complaint”). [Dkt. nos. 37, 38.] On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion for Summary Judgment”). [Dkt. no. 41.] On September 2, 2021, Defendant Kohanaiki Community Association (“Defendant”) filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”). [Dkt. no. 45.]

On October 2, 2021, after leave to amend was granted in part, see dkt. no. 56, Plaintiff filed his “Second Amended Complaint 42-U.S.C 1983 Excessive Force/Negligence Demand for Jury Trial” (“Second Amended Complaint”), [dkt. no. 58]. Because Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint, the First Amended Complaint is now treated as if it no longer exists. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (stating that an “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Motion to Dismiss, which addresses the First Amended Complaint, is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. The denial of the Motion to Dismiss is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a new motion to dismiss addressing the Second Amended Complaint.

Similarly, in light of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a new motion for summary judgment that refers to the Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Submitted by: Agalelei Elkington, Courtroom Manager