1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Great West Casualty Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-02351-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff Order Striking Clerk’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss Under Rule 4(m) 6 v.

7 Arch Insurance Company, et al., [ECF No. 9]

8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff Great West Casualty Company filed its first amended complaint was filed on 11 March 10, 2025. FAC, ECF No. 8. One week later, on March 17, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered 12 its notice of intent to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because no proper 13 proof of service was filed for Great West’s complaint filed on December 17, 2024. ECF No. 9. The 14 notice provides that Great West must provide proof of service by April 16, 2025, to avoid 15 dismissal. Id. However, because the clerk erroneously issued the notice, I strike it. 16 The rules regarding service provide that “the plaintiff is responsible for having the 17 summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m),” which requires, in part, 18 that a defendant be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1); 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added). Here, Great West’s first amended complaint was filed on 20 March 10, 2025, which effectively supersedes the original complaint in its entirety and renders it 21 inoperative. Lacey v. Maricopa County,

(9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he general rule is that 22 an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect[.]”). 23 24 25 26 1 Conclusion 2 Accordingly, it is ordered that the Clerk of Court’s notice of intent to dismiss pursuant 3]| to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) [ECF No. 9] is S TCKEN. 4 Dated: March 25, 2025 // 5 Lha-— 6 Cristi . Silva . on States District Judge 7 / 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26