(PS) Sharma v. Griswold

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NARENDRA SHARMA, No. 2:19–cv–1731–MCE–KJN (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 13 v. (ECF Nos. 5, 6) RICHARDSON C. GRISWOLD, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant on September 3, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On October 10, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) Seven days later, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows for a complaint to be amended “once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .”). This amendment as a matter of course renders an original complaint null. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”).

25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT.

27 //// 1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 | Dated: October 29, 2019 ; Frese Arn 4 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE S | shar.1731