Case Information

*1 Case 2:16-cv-00074-JAD-GWF Document 43 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 2:16-cv-00074-JAD-GWF

Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC dba Newtek Merchant Solutions,

6 Plaintiff Order Denying Motions to Dismiss as

Moot in Light of Amended Complaint 7 v.

[#23, 24, 28, 42] Sungame Corp., et al.,

Defendants

In response to the original complaint, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, transfer venue. ^[1] Two weeks later, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, ^[2] and the parties have stipulated to extend the defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to it. ^[3]

Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits parties to amend their complaints once as a matter of course within 21 days of a motion to dismiss. ^[4] Plaintiff’s amended complaint was timely filed as of right. Once filed, an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading in its entirety, mooting a motion to dismiss the original pleading. ^[5]

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motions to dismiss or transfer venue based on the original complaint [ECF No. 23, 24, 28] are DENIED as moot and without prejudice;

I treat the pending stipulation to extend time to respond to the complaint [ECF No. 42] as a joint motion to extend the deadlines, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request to extend the *2 Case 2:16-cv-00074-JAD-GWF Document 43 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 2 deadlines [ECF No. 42] is GRANTED. Defendants will have until May 27, 2016, to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint [ECF No. 37]; if any defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaint, plaintiff’s response will be due June 17, 2016, and reply briefs will be due July 1, 2016.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the original motions to dismiss scheduled for June 13, 2016, is VACATED.

Dated this 16th day of May, 2016.

_________________________________ Jennifer A. Dorsey ________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________________ ifer rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr A. DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDorsey United States District Judge ed Statt tetetttt s District JJJJJJJJuddudduddduddududddduddududduddduuuu ge Page 2 of 2

[1] ECF No. 23, 24, 28.

[2] ECF No. 37. 25

[3] ECF No. 42. 26

[4] Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 27

[5] See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc ., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds in 28 Lacey v. Maricopa County , 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). Page 1 of 2