3:26-cv-07139•Akther v. Hayes
Full text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HASNA AKTHER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD A. HAYES, Defendant. Case No. 26-cv-07139-TSH ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 10 Plaintiff Hasna Akther, who is self-represented, brings this action against Defendant Richard A. Hayes. ECF No. 1. On August 28, 2026, Akther filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).1 ECF No. 8. Pending before the Court is Hayes’s Motion to Dismiss Akther’s Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 10 (“Mot.”). Hayes moves to dismiss the original Complaint. Mot. at 3. However, the Motion is moot as it was filed after Akther filed her FAC. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Hayes’s Motion to Dismiss.2 Hayes shall file a response to the FAC within fourteen days of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 15, 2026 THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge 1 The parties filed a joint case management statement on October 8, 2026. ECF No. 16. The statement erroneously states: “Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, which remains pending.” Id. at 5. On August 26, 2026, the Court explained that Akther may file a FAC as a matter of course. ECF No. 7. Akther then filed her FAC. ECF No. 8. 2 The parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF Nos. 2, 10-2. Case 3:26-cv-07139-TSH Document 17 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 1
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.