Gonzalez v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
In a wage and hour class action, the court considered a defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) after the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The court denied the motion as moot because the plaintiff properly amended the complaint as a matter of course within 21 days of service of the motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 9] is denied as moot.“Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Jeld-Wen’s Motion as moot. [Dkt. 9].” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which permits a plaintiff to amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b). The order recites that the motion was served on July 26, 2024, and the First Amended Complaint was filed on August 14, 2024, which is 19 days later. Because the amendment was timely and made as a matter of course, the original complaint was superseded, rendering the motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. This follows the standard procedural rule cited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 15(a)(1)(B)), verifies the timeline (19 days is within the 21-day limit), and applies the established legal consequence (mootness of the motion to dismiss the original complaint). The reasoning is concise and directly answers the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GONZALEZ, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01116-JO-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 13 vs. MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [Dkt. 9] 14 15 JELD-WEN, INC., ET AL., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 In this wage and hour class action, Plaintiff Gabriel Gonzalez alleges Defendant 21 Jeld-Wen, Inc. failed to properly compensate Gonzalez and the other class members for 22 their hours worked. [Dkt. 1-1 at 3]. On July 26, 2024, Jeld-Wen filed a motion to dismiss 23 Gonzalez’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the 24 “Motion”). [Dkt. 9]. Rather than oppose the Motion, Gonzalez filed a first amended 25 complaint (the “FAC”) on August 14, 2024. [Dkt. 11]. For the reasons set forth below, 26 the Court DENIES Jeld-Wen’s Motion as moot. [Dkt. 9]. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) (“Rule 15(a)(1)(B)”) allows a plaintiff 28 to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within “21 days after service of a motion 1 under Rule 12(b)[.]” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1)(B). When a party properly avails itself 2 || of the opportunity to amend its pleading in response to a Rule 12(b) motion, courts deny 3 pending motions to dismiss as moot. See Rodriguez v. Zenni Optical, Inc., No. 23-cv- 4 ||00821-H-KSC, 2023 WL 3612392, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2023) (citing Ramirez v. Cnty. 5 || of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015)). 6 Here, Gonzalez filed his FAC on August 14, 2024, which is 19 days after he was 7 served with Jeld-Wen’s Motion. [Dkt. 9; Dkt. 11]. Because Gonzalez filed his FAC within 8 ||21 days of being served with Jeld-Wen’s Motion, Gonzalez properly amended his pleading 9 llunder Rule 15(a)(1)(B). And, because Gonzalez properly amended his pleading in 10 |/response to Jeld-Wen’s Motion, the Court finds Jeld-Wen’s Motion moot. See Ramirez, 11 F.3d at 1008 (explaining that an amended complaint supersedes its predecessor such 12 || that courts should find motions to dismiss directed at the former complaint moot). 13 Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Jeld-Wen’s Motion as 14 ||moot. [Dkt. 9]. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: August 21, 2024 18 19 Cr —? 20 Horr Tinsook Ohta United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ALANA n~147- TW, □□□□□