Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martinez-Barren v. Ingram Micro

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


August 15, 2006

PABLO J. MARTINEZ-BARREN, PLAINTIFF
v.
INGRAM MICRO, INC., DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2006, upon consideration of the motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 9),*fn1 and the motion to dismiss the original complaint (Doc. 5), and it appearing that a responsive pleading has not been served, see FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) ("A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served . . . ."), and that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, see Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002) ("An amended complaint supercedes the original version in providing the blueprint for the future course of a lawsuit."); see also 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) ("Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case . . . ."), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to remove the proposed document (Doc. 9, Ex. 1) from the docket and file it as an amended complaint as of the date of this order.

3. The motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is DENIED as moot.

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.