Opinion
2:12-cv-01736-GEB-KJN
03-06-2013
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
The dismissal motion filed on November 19, 2012, (ECF No. 17), is denied since the motion concerns Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which is no longer the operative pleading in this action, since Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on March 6, 2013. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc., v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating "an amended pleading supersedes the original"); Jones v. TW & Co., Inc., No. 1:11-CV-1242 AWI JLT, 2011 WL 4055721, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011) ("With the filing of the [SAC], that complaint will be the active complaint and [Defendants'] motion to dismiss will be [denied].").
______________________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge