Opinion
2:23-cv-00839-KJM-CSK (PS)
10-09-2024
SHEILA HALOUSEK, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On July 1, 2024, the magistrate judge issued an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and granting plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. See ECF No. 19. The magistrate judge also recommended defendants' motion to dismiss at ECF No. 11 be granted in part and denied in part. Id. This order and recommendation was served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On July 25, 2024, and after being granted additional time to object, see Min. Order, ECF No. 21, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, see Obj.,ECF No. 22. Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint as ordered by the magistrate judge. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 23; Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). This filing renders defendants' motion to dismiss at ECF No. 11 moot. Cf. Berkley Assurance Co. v. Olam Americas, Inc., No. 22-00904, 2023 WL 3884436, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2023) (noting “[e]ven if the Court did not adopt the recommendation to withdraw the motions, it would find the motions moot with the filing of the amended complaint”); see also Huang v. Genesis Glob. Hardware, Inc., No. 20-1713, 2020 WL 6318206, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2020) (“This amendment as a matter of course renders an original complaint null, thereby mooting defendants' motion to dismiss.”). Therefore, the court denies defendants' motion to dismiss at ECF No. 11 as moot. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.