Valve Corporation v. Rothschild

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE VALVE CORPORATION, CASE NO. 23-cv-1016 Plaintiff, ORDER v. LEIGH ROTHSCHILD; ROTHSCHILD SYSTEMS, LLC; DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; PATENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; MEYLER LEGAL, PLLC; and, SAMUEL MEYLER, Defendants.

The parties jointly moved for leave permitting Plaintiff Valve Corporation to file its Second Amended Complaint, which the Court granted in part on January 11, 2024. Dkt. Nos. 33, 37. Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint on January 16, 2024. Dkt. No. 38. As the Court noted in its previous Order, ‘“[a]s a general rule, when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the amended complaint supercedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”’ Dkt. No. 37 at 3 (quoting Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted)). Here, Defendants have two pending motions to dismiss which relate to Plaintiff’s

Complaint and First Amended Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 18, 27. Additionally, Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Seal relates to an exhibit attached to its First Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 24. Because the Second Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint (which superseded the original Complaint), Defendants’ pending motions are rendered moot. Dkt. No. 18 (Motion to Dismiss Complaint), Dkt. No. 27 (Motion

to Dismiss First Amended Complaint). The same is also true of Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Seal. Dkt. No. 24. Thus, the pending motions are DENIED without prejudice. Dkt. Nos. 18, 24, 27. The Court orders the Clerk to strike the documents associated with Plaintiff’s motion to seal. See Dkt. No. 23-6. The parties may renew their motions per this Court’s Order granting their stipulated motion. See Dkt. No. 37 at 4. It is so ORDERED.

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2024. A Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge