ROGER HUNT, District Judge
Before the Court is Defendant Beneficial Nevada Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (#4), filed September 7, 2006. The Court has also considered Plaintiff's Opposition (#5), filed September 25, 2006, and Defendant's Reply (#7), filed October 9, 2006.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (#8), filed October 16, 2006. The Court has also considered Defendant's Response (#9), filed November 1, 2006. The Court will not await a Reply.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"), "[a] party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. . . ." A motion to dismiss is not a "responsive pleading" within the meaning of FRCP 15(a). Nolen v. Fitzharris, 450 F.2d 958 (9th Cir. 1971). Here, Defendant has yet to serve a responsive pleading, and therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff retains the right to amend his pleading as "a matter of course" and no leave of the court is necessary. Nonetheless, because Plaintiff has requested leave of the court, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is granted.
Because Plaintiff's amended Complaint supersedes the original complaint in its entirety, See London v. Coopers Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1981), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's original complaint is moot.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#4) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (#8) is GRANTED.
The Plaintiff is hereby directed to file and serve his First Amended Complaint.