Goodrich v. Cross River Bank

4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JULIA GREENFIELD, Case No. 21-cv-09296-MMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 9 v. CLARIFY EFFECT OF JULY 26, 2022, ORDER; DEEMING PLAINTIFF'S 10 CROSS RIVER BANK, MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE WITHDRAWN Defendant.

13 Before the Court is plaintiff Julia Greenfield's Administrative Motion, filed August 1, 2022, "to Clarify the Effect of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order." Defendant Cross River Bank has filed opposition. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and provides the following clarification.

18 On July 7, 2022, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Dismiss Defendant Cross River Bank's Counterclaim and Strike Its Answer" ("Motion to Dismiss/Strike"), which Motion presently is set for hearing August 26, 2022. On July 26, 2022, the Court granted defendant's "Motion to Strike Class Allegations" and afforded plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). By the instant Administrative Motion, plaintiff seeks clarification as to whether the FAC, which she subsequently timely filed on August 15, 2022, moots her Motion to Dismiss/Strike.

25 As defendant acknowledges, it will file an amended answer to address the new allegations in the FAC. (See Def.'s Opp. at 2:20-21.) Upon the filing of such amended answer, the current answer will be superseded. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th thereafter as non-existent"); Goldstone v. Payne, 94 F.2d 855, 856 (2nd Cir. 1938) (noting "amended answer supersede[s] the original answer"). As a result, the Motion to || Dismiss/Strike will, at that point, become moot. Under the circumstances, the Court finds || it appropriate, in the interests of avoiding an unnecessary expenditure of funds and time, || to discontinue briefing on plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss/Strike.!

6 Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss/Strike is hereby deemed withdrawn, || without prejudice to refiling after defendant files its amended answer.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 || Dated: August 16, 2022 .

INE M. CHESNEY 11 United States District Judge

27 ' Although defendant has filed opposition to the Motion to Dismiss/Strike, plaintiff 28 has not filed a reply thereto.