1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SHEILA HALOUSEK, No. 2:23-cv-00839-KJM-CSK (PS) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 17 On July 1, 2024, the magistrate judge issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint 18 without prejudice and granting plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. See ECF 19 No. 19. The magistrate judge also recommended defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF No. 11 be 20 granted in part and denied in part. Id. This order and recommendation was served on the parties 21 and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 22 within fourteen (14) days. On July 25, 2024, and after being granted additional time to object, see 23 Min. Order, ECF No. 21, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, see 24 Obj.,ECF No. 22. Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint as ordered by the magistrate 25 judge. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 23; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This filing renders 26 defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF No. 11 moot. Cf. Berkley Assurance Co. v. Olam 27 Americas, Inc., No. 22-00904, 2023 WL 3884436, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2023) (noting “[e]ven 28 if the Court did not adopt the recommendation to withdraw the motions, it would find the motions 1 |} moot with the filing of the amended complaint”); see also Huang v. Genesis Glob. Hardware, 2 || Inc., No. 20-1713, 2020 WL 6318206, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2020) (“This amendment as a 3 || matter of course renders an original complaint null, thereby mooting defendants’ motion to 4 || dismiss.”). Therefore, the court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF No. 11 as moot. 5 || This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 6 SO ORDERED. 7 | DATED: October 8, 2024. oUt 9 = J M/Z □□□

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28