1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 VANESSA MUSTAFA, Case No. 3:21-CV-00481-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT AND GRANTING MOTION TO 6 v. AMEND

7 SPARKS JUSTICE COURT, [ECF Nos. 9, 16]

8 Defendant.

9 10 This case involves a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Vanessa Mustafa (“Mustafa”) 11 against Defendant Sparks Justice Court. Currently pending before the Court is Sparks 12 Justice Court’s motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 13 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 9.) Mustafa responded, (ECF No. 16), and Sparks Justice Court 14 replied, (ECF No. 17). Also pending before the Court is Mustafa’s motion for leave to 15 amend complaint, (ECF No. 16), to which the Sparks Justice Court responded, (ECF No. 16 17). 17 The motion to dismiss first argues Sparks Justice Court is not a “suable entity” and 18 therefore must be dismissed. (ECF No. 9 at 4-6.) Mustafa concedes that the complaint as 19 filed is defective and seeks leave to amend to name the proper Defendant—Washoe 20 County. (ECF No. 16 at 2.) Mustafa attaches a proposed amended complaint reflecting 21 this change. (ECF No. 16-1.) Sparks Justice Court does not oppose Mustafa’s request to 22 file the proposed amended complaint, but argues that amendment may nonetheless be 23 futile based on the other issues raised in the motion to dismiss (i.e. the personal staff 24 exemption, punitive damages, compensatory damages, and Younger abstention 25 doctrine). (ECF No. 17 at 2.) Presently, Mustafa has not addressed these other issues. 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) instructs that “[t]he court should freely 27 give[] leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” The Ninth Circuit has made clear Rule 15(a) permits liberal application. Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. 1 Sonoma Cnty.,

(9th Cir. 2013). Under Rule 15(a), courts consider 2 various factors, including: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing 3 party; (4) the futility of the amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously 4 amended his complaint. Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2014). The factors do not weigh equally; rather, prejudice receives the greatest weight. 5 Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2020) (citing Eminence 6 Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). Sparks Justice Court 7 does not oppose the motion to amend, and in light of the liberal standard of Rule 15, the 8 Court grants the motion, (ECF No. 16). 9 An “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter 10 as non-existent.” Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff,

(9th Cir. 2011) (citation 11 omitted). Additionally, an amended complaint will also ordinarily moot a pending motion 12 to dismiss. Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino,

(9th Cir. 2015). 13 Accordingly, because the amended complaint, (ECF No. 16-1), is now the operative 14 complaint in this case, the motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 9), is denied as moot. 15 I. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the above, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to dismiss, 17 (ECF No. 9), is DENIED, AS MOOT; and, 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to file an amended complaint, 19 (ECF No. 16), is GRANTED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: _F_e_b_ru_a_r_y_ 2_,_ 2_0_2_2___. 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27