Knowledge Hardy v. INDYMAC Federal Bank et al
Filing
21
ORDER DISMISSES as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss ; 12 Motion to Strike, 14 Motion to Dismiss; VACATES August 10 and August 13, 2009 hearings on these motions, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/27/2009. (Martin, S)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 By notice on July 9, 2009, defendants Americas Best Home Loans and Joe Gardella ("Mr. Gardella") (collectively "Americas Best") move to dismiss certain claims asserted by plaintiff Knowledge Hardy ("Mr. Hardy"), and to strike language in the complaint that refers to Mr. Hardy's prayer for recovery of attorneys' fees and punitive damages. In addition, defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. ("MERS") moved to dismiss Mr. Hardy's second, third, sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action on July 13, 2009. Mr. Hardy filed an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), on July 24, 2009. An amended complaint supercedes a previous complaint rendering moot a motion to dismiss the original complaint. See e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1991); Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956) ("[A]n amended pleading supercedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent."). Accordingly, this Court DISMISSES as moot Americas Best's motion to dismiss and motion to strike, DISMISSES as moot MERS' motion to dismiss, and VACATES the August 10 and August 13, 2009 hearings on these motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 July 27, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE vs. INDYMAC Federal Bank, et al., Defendants. / KNOWLEDGE HARDY, Plaintiff, CASE NO. CV F 09-935 LJO SMS ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE (Docs. 11, 12, 14) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
