SmarterSwipe, Inc. v. Navarrete

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA \SmarterSwipe, Inc., Case No. 2:24-ev-00299-CDS-MDC Plaintiff Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Denying Motion to Dismiss, and V. Approving Substitution of Counsel |\|Carlos Navarrete, et al., [ECF Nos. 3, 39, 43] Defendants Plaintiff SmarterSwipe, Inc.’s motion to file an amended complaint [ECF No. 43] is granted. An “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal /citation omitted)). Strictly speaking, “the original pleading no longer performs any function ....” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Consequently, defendant Emmanuel Gonzalez’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 3] is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to file SmarterSwipe’s amended complaint (attached as exhibit 1 to the motion to amend at ECF No. 43-1) on the docket as SmarterSwipe’s /first amended complaint. Further, defendants Robert Porras and Brian Silva’s notice to substitute Jennifer L. Braster of Naylor & Braster Attorneys at Law PLLC as counsel in the place of Jones Lovelock [ECF No. 39] is granted. /) Dated: June 4, 2024 / / SZ Cristing’D. Silva Uni ed States District Judge