Martinez
Martinez v. Cynosure, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, Case No. 20cv1513-MMA-BGS
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CYNOSURE, INC.’S v. MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
CYNOSURE, INC,
[Doc. No. 4] Defendant. 16 17 18 On August 13, 2020, Defendant Cynosure, Inc. (“Cynosure”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Francisco Martinez’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint. See Doc No. 4. On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in lieu of a response to Cynosure’s motion. See Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff has not previously amended his Complaint and has timely filed his FAC within twenty-one days after service of Defendant’s motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, the complaint which Cynosure seeks to dismiss is no longer the operative pleading in this action, as an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See…