The Upper Deck Company v. Panini America, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered Defendant's motion to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint. The court denied the motion as moot because the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint that superseded the First Amended Complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint is denied as moot.“the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to strike the first amended complaint as MOOT.” | agree with court The decision follows standard civil procedure principles. When a party files a new amended complaint, it supersedes the prior complaint, rendering any pending motions directed at the prior complaint moot. The court correctly identified that the Second Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint, making the motion to strike the First Amended Complaint moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority to support the conclusion that the motion is moot due to the filing of a subsequent amended complaint. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, a Case No.: 20cv185-GPC(KSC) Nevada corporation, 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST v. AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT 14 PANINI AMERICA, INC., 15 [Dkt. No. 24.] Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s 18 motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 20, 2020. (Dkt. No. 19 23.) On August 3, 2020, Defendant file a motion to strike portions of the first amended 20 complaint. (Dkt. No. 24.) On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended 21 complaint. (Dkt. No. 28.) On September 8, 2020, Defendant filed an answer to the 22 second amended complaint. Because the second amended complaint supersedes the first 23 amended complaint and the latter treated as non-existent, see Ramirez v. Cnty. of San 24 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 || to strike the first amended complaint as MOOT. The hearing set on September 25, 2020 2 || shall be vacated. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: September 9, 2020 Casto 0h 5 Hon. abe Cok. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28