Sywula v. DaCosta
This text of Sywula v. DaCosta (Sywula v. DaCosta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, Case No. 21-cv-01450-BAS-AGS
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT: 13 v. (1) MOTION TO DISMISS OR 14 ALEXIS DACOSTA, et al., TRANSFER VENUE 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 8); AND
16 (2) REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO 17 RESPOND TO NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION (ECF No. 24) 18
20 Defendant Teleport Mobility, Inc. moved to dismiss Plaintiff Krzysztof Sywula’s 21 Complaint or transfer venue. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and did 22 not respond to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 15.) Defendant replied to its motion, 23 highlighting Plaintiff’s non-opposition and inviting the Court to grant the motion in spite 24 of the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff then sought leave to respond to 25 Defendant’s filing. (ECF No. 24.) 26 “[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. 27 Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendant’s arguments for 28 why the Court should deviate from this general rule are unpersuasive. The Court therefore 1 || TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue (ECF No. 8) 2 ||and Plaintiff's accompanying request for leave to respond to Defendant’s filing (ECF No. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 A , 6 || DATED: March 8, 2022 Ypilag | Bioha wh 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sywula v. DaCosta, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sywula-v-dacosta-casd-2022.