Fox v. Kovacs

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Marcella Fox, Case No. 2:24-cv-00047-CDS-NJK 5 Plaintiff Order Denying as Moot Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Denying as Moot GI v. Plaintiff's Pending Motions 7|| Ryan Kovacs, et al., 8 Defendants [ECF Nos. 12, 40, 41, 50] 10 Plaintiff Marcella Fox filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 66), which has the effect of 11} superseding the original complaint in its entirety. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 12] F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Ramirez v. Cnty of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). For this reason, defendants Ryan Kovacs, Le Croque Mitaine LLC, and Orange Realty Group LLC’s motion to dismiss targeting the original complaint [ECF No. 12] is denied as 15|| moot. “Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the Plaintiffs. .. Complaint, which 16|| was no longer in effect, we conclude that the motion to dismiss should have been deemed 17|| moot[.]”). Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. Further, because the motion to dismiss is moot, Fox’s requests for the court to issue a ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF Nos. 40, 41] and 19]| request for rulings on pending motions [ECF No. 50] are denied as moot.

20 Dated: January 24, 2025 / ) 21 Lf hkheira—<— 53 pps States District Judge