Summary
This United States District Court for the District of Nevada order addresses several pending motions following the plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint. Because the amended complaint supersedes the original pleading, the court denies the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Consequently, the plaintiff's requests for rulings on additional pending motions are also denied as moot. The order was issued on January 24, 2025.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants' motion to dismiss targeting a superseded complaint is moot
Holdings
- The motion to dismiss is moot because the complaint it targeted has been superseded, and therefore the motion is denied.
Key quotations
“Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the Plaintiffs… Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that the motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot.” (at 1)
Factual background
Plaintiff Marcella Fox filed an amended complaint that superseded the original complaint. Defendants Ryan Kovacs, Le Croque Mitaine LLC, and Orange Realty Group LLC moved to dismiss the original complaint.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint superseding the original complaint; defendants filed a motion to dismiss targeting the original complaint; the court held the motion moot and denied it.