Signal Hound Inc v. Expandable Software Inc

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 SIGNAL HOUND, INC., CASE NO. C21-5448 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 9 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 10 EXPANDABLE SOFTWARE, INC., 11 Defendant. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Expandable Software, Inc.’s 14 motion to dismiss. Dkt. 10. 15 On July 6, 2021, Expandable moved to dismiss Plaintiff Signal Hound, Inc.’s 16 complaint. Id. On July 29, 2021, the parties informed the Court that they stipulated to 17 allow Signal Hound to file an amended complaint by September 13, 2021. Dkts. 12 18 (Expandable’s reply), 13 (Signal Hound’s response). Indeed, Signal Hound has since 19 filed its amended complaint, Dkt. 14, and Expandable has now moved to dismiss the 20 amended complaint, Dkt. 17. 21 It is well established that an “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 22 being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 1 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 2 Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927–28 (9th Cir. 2012). Where a motion to dismiss targets 3 a complaint that has been superseded by an amended complaint, the court should deem

4 the motion to dismiss moot. Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 5 (9th Cir. 2015). Upon the filing of Signal Hound’s amended complaint, Expandable’s 6 motion to dismiss the initial complaint became moot. Accordingly, Expandable’s motion 7 to dismiss, Dkt. 10, is DENIED as moot. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated this 13th day of October, 2021. A 10 11 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 12 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22