Spitler v. Arizona, State of

Opinion

WO 2 3 4 5 8 || Kimberly Spitler, No. CV-19-04859-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER vy. 12) State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the State of Arizona’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6.) 16|| Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint (Doc. 10), and therefore the motion to dismiss □□ the original complaint is moot. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. || 1997) (‘[T]he amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated || thereafter as non-existent.”); A.R.D. v. Kerry, 2014 WL 12617410, *1 (D. Ariz. 2014) 20 || (denying motion to dismiss as moot after superseding amended complaint was filed). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is denied as moot. 23 Dated this 21st day of August, 2019. 24 25 fu 7

United States District Judge 28