From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mordoff v. City of Modesto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 20, 2011
1:11-CV-1039 AWI DLB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2011)

Opinion

1:11-CV-1039 AWI DLB

10-20-2011

JOSHUA MORDOFF, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MODESTO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER VACATING

OCTOBER 24, 2011 HEARING

AND ORDER ON

DEFENDANTS'S MOTION TO

DISMISS


(Doc. No. 10)

Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on August 10, 2011. On October 5, 2011, Magistrate Judge Beck signed a stipulation for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or by October 20, 2011. See Court's Docket Doc. No. 24. On October 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

An "amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent." Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Here, the amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and the original complaint is treated as non-existent. See id. Since Defendants' motion attacks Plaintiff's original and now "non-existent" complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss is moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the October 24, 2011, hearing date on Defendants' motion to dismiss is VACATED, and Defendants's motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ____


Summaries of

Mordoff v. City of Modesto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 20, 2011
1:11-CV-1039 AWI DLB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2011)
Case details for

Mordoff v. City of Modesto

Case Details

Full title:JOSHUA MORDOFF, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MODESTO, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 20, 2011

Citations

1:11-CV-1039 AWI DLB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2011)