Case Information
*1 Case 2:07-cv-00204-SMM Document 14 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 2 WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Clarence Hill, ) No. CV-07-0204-PHX-SMM
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
United States Postal Service, John E. Porter, Post Mater General, USA,
Defendants.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Clarence Hill’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Amend Complaint. (Doc. 12)
Rule 15(a) provides that a “party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. In the present case, no responsive pleading has been served; thus, Plaintiff retains an automatic right to amend the pleadings single time. [1]
21
Accordingly,
22
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 12) 23
is GRANTED .
24
25
26
*2 Case 2:07-cv-00204-SMM Document 14 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the Proposed First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A to Doc. 12.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with leave to refile, if necessary, based on the First Amended Complaint. [2] (Doc. 11)
DATED this 12 th day of July, 2007.
[1] Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is not a responsive pleading within 27 the meaning Rule 15(a). See e.g., Shaver v. Operating Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust 28 Fund , 332 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2003).
[2] The filing of an amended complaint replaces the previous complaint. Thus, the Court 26 finds it appropriate to deny the motion to dismiss with leave to refile if necessary, based on the Amended Complaint. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th 2001); Hal Roach Studios, 27 Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989); Bullen v. De 28 Bretteville , 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956). - 2 -