Augustine

I 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 || OPHELIA AUGUSTINE, Case No.: 22-cv-2027-L-AHG Plaintitt.| ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 8 || V. DISMISS AS MOOT 9 || LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., [ECF No. 8] Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff 13 || timely filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 14 || Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot. Ramirez v. County of San 15 || Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Defendant shall file a response to the |}amended complaint, if any, no later than the time provided for in Federal Rule of Civil 17 || Procedure 15(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: April 3, 2023 fee Soop H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge

28