The Upper Deck Company v. Panini America, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, a Case No.: 20cv185-GPC(KSC) Nevada corporation, 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST v. AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT 14

PANINI AMERICA, INC., 15 [Dkt. No. 24.] Defendant. 16

17 Pursuant to the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s 18 motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 20, 2020. (Dkt. No. 19 23.) On August 3, 2020, Defendant file a motion to strike portions of the first amended 20 complaint. (Dkt. No. 24.) On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended 21 complaint. (Dkt. No. 28.) On September 8, 2020, Defendant filed an answer to the 22 second amended complaint. Because the second amended complaint supersedes the first 23 amended complaint and the latter treated as non-existent, see Ramirez v. Cnty. of San 24 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 || to strike the first amended complaint as MOOT. The hearing set on September 25, 2020 2 || shall be vacated. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: September 9, 2020 Casto 0h 5 Hon. abe Cok. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28