Sywula v. DaCosta

Opinion

KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, Case No. 21-cv-01450-BAS-AGS

Plaintiff, ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT: v. (1) MOTION TO DISMISS OR ALEXIS DACOSTA, et al., TRANSFER VENUE Defendants. (ECF No. 8); AND

(2) REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION (ECF No. 24)

Defendant Teleport Mobility, Inc. moved to dismiss Plaintiff Krzysztof Sywula’s Complaint or transfer venue. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and did not respond to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 15.) Defendant replied to its motion, highlighting Plaintiff’s non-opposition and inviting the Court to grant the motion in spite of the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff then sought leave to respond to Defendant’s filing. (ECF No. 24.) “[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendant’s arguments for why the Court should deviate from this general rule are unpersuasive. The Court therefore TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue (ECF No. 8) and Plaintiff's accompanying request for leave to respond to Defendant’s filing (ECF No. A , || DATED: March 8, 2022 Ypilag | Bioha wh United States District Judge