Malek v. Valentia Apartments, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, which the court granted and accepted as operative. The court denied the pending motions for preliminary injunction and to dismiss as moot because they were based on the now-inoperative original complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Joint Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ request and ACCEPTS the newly-filed FAC as operative.” | agree with court The parties jointly moved for leave to amend, and the court found good cause. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be freely given when requested by both parties, particularly in the early stages of litigation. The court's decision follows standard procedure. |
Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot“All other prior motions, that is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 3, 14), being based on the now-inoperative complaint, are DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court When a complaint is amended and the original is rendered inoperative, pending motions directed at the original complaint are generally considered moot because the court no longer has jurisdiction over the claims as originally pleaded. The court cited district court authority supporting this procedural step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the amendment renders the original complaint inoperative, thereby mooting the pending motions. The court relies on persuasive district court authority from the same circuit to support this procedural conclusion. There are no gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHALA MALEK, Case No.: 24cv2076-LL-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR 14 VALENTIA APARTMENTS, LLC; LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED SHEA PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT 15 COMPLAINT [ECF No. 17]; COMPANY, INC.; and DANIELLE 16 HARRIS, ACCEPTING FIRST AMENDED 17 Defendants. COMPLAINT AS OPERATIVE [ECF No. 18]; AND 18 19 DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PRIOR MOTIONS [ECF Nos. 3, 14] 20 21 On March 4, 2025, the parties jointly moved for Plaintiff’s leave to file a First 22 Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 17. On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed the FAC, 23 which has thirty-five more allegations and three more claims than the original complaint. 24 Compare ECF No. 1 with ECF No. 18. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the 25 parties’ request and ACCEPTS the newly-filed FAC as operative. ECF No. 18. By March 26 31, 2025, Defendants must file their response to the FAC. 27 All other prior motions, that is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 28 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 3, 14), being based on the now-inoperative 1 complaint, are DENIED AS MOOT. See O. L. v. City of El Monte, No. 20-cv-0797-RGK 2 || (JDE), 2020 WL 7264545, at *2—3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2020) (denying as moot motion for 3 || preliminary injunction and motion to dismiss based on prior complaint when accepting new 4 “operative” complaint); Perrin Bernard Supowitz, LLC v. Morales, No. 22-cv-2120-ODW 5 || (JEMx), 2022 WL 3686407, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2022) (denying as moot motion for 6 || preliminary injunction based on “now-inoperative” complaint when the plaintiff amended 7 complaint with “new allegations and claims”). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: March 12, 2025 NO 10 Qe | 11 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28