Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Danner

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT TACOMA 10 11 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05544-TL COMPANY, 12 ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO Plaintiff(s), 13 v. DISMISS AS MOOT 14 DAVID W DANNER, in his official capacity as Chair of the Washington 15 Utilities and Transportation Commission, et al., 16 Defendant(s). 17

18 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 13 19 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 14) prior to its response deadline for the motion 20 and within the time allowed for amendment as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); 21 LCR 7(d)(3). Plaintiff also filed a response to the motion to dismiss noting that its filing of an 22 Amended Complaint renders Defendants’ motion moot. Dkt. No. 15. When a Plaintiff amends a 23 complaint, it supersedes and completely replaces the original complaint. See Hal Roach Studios 24 v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.1990) ("an amended pleading supersedes 1 the original"); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967) (same). Defendants did not object to 2 Plaintiff’s attempt to amend as a matter of course and have responded by filing a new Rule 12 3 motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 18. 4 Consequently, the Court ORDERS that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original

5 complaint (Dkt. No. 13) is moot and STRIKES the motion from the Court’s hearing calendar. 6 Dated this 26th day of October 2022. 7 A 8 Tana Lin United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24