Aragon v. DZR Group Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court resolved a docketing error where an amended complaint was filed before an order to show cause issued, discharging the order to show cause. The court dismissed the amended complaint for failing to include all claims and necessary allegations, but granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint by June 10, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Discharge of Order to Show Cause“Thus, the order to show cause is discharged.” | agree with court The order to show cause was issued based on the court's belief that no amended complaint had been filed. The record shows the amended complaint was filed on May 16, 2025, prior to the issuance of the order on May 19, 2025, but did not appear on the docket until later. Discharging the order is the correct procedural remedy for a docketing error that created a false premise for the order. |
Dismissal of Amended Complaint“As a result, Aragon’s amended complaint is dismissed.” | agree with court Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and local rules, an amended complaint supersedes the original and must be complete in itself. The amended complaint omitted claims that had previously survived screening and failed to include critical allegations (such as the defendant's status as a debt collector) required to state a claim. Dismissal is appropriate because the pleading failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and was not self-contained. |
Grant of Leave to Amend“the Court grants him additional time to amend his complaint again. Any second amended complaint must be filed by June 10, 2025” | agree with court The court found that the plaintiff likely made an error in believing he could incorporate the original complaint by reference. Granting leave to amend is consistent with the liberal amendment policy of Rule 15(a) and the court's discretion to allow a plaintiff to cure a defective pleading, especially when the defect appears to be a misunderstanding of procedural rules rather than a strategic choice to abandon claims. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural error (docketing delay) and resolves it by discharging the order to show cause. It correctly applies the rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original and must be self-contained. It correctly identifies that the amended complaint failed to state a claim due to missing critical allegations and omitted previously viable claims. The grant of leave to amend is a reasonable exercise of discretion given the apparent misunderstanding of the rule against incorporation by reference. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Daniel ARAGON, Case No.: 25-cv-0264-AGS-BLM 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF 5), DISMISSING 5 v. COMPLAINT (ECF 6), AND 6 DZR GROUP INC., et al., GRANTING FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Daniel Aragon initially brought 10 causes of action arising out of 10 defendant’s alleged debt-collection practices. (See generally ECF 1.) The Court screened 11 Aragon’s complaint and dismissed only the claims based on purported continued debt 12 collection without verification. (See ECF 4, at 5, 8); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b); Cal. 13 Civ. Code § 1788.52(c). “All other claims survive[d] screening.” (Id. at 8.) Aragon was 14 granted leave to amend the dismissed claims “by May 8, 2025.” (Id.) On May 19, 2025, it 15 appeared that no amended complaint had been filed, so this Court ordered Aragon “to show 16 cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 17 prosecute.” (ECF 5.) 18 Unbeknownst to the Court, Aragon filed an amended complaint on May 16, 2025, 19 that did not appear on the docket until after the order to show cause issued. (See ECF 6.) 20 Thus, the order to show cause is discharged. But the new complaint still has problems. 21 “[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. 22 Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). So, an amended complaint 23 “must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.” CivLR 15.1(a). 24 Aragon’s amended complaint contains only one claim: failure to “cease collection of debt” 25 without verification. (ECF 6, at 3.) Notably, none of the claims that survived this Court’s 26 initial screening are included. (See generally id.) And allegations critical to state claims for 27 unlawful debt-collection practices that were present in the first complaint—such as 28 allegations that defendants are “debt collector[s]”—are also absent. (See id.); Robinson v. 1 || Managed Accts. Receivables, 654 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“In order for 2 ||a plaintiff to recover under the FDCPA,” “the defendant must be a ‘debt collector.’”). As 3 ||a result, Aragon’s amended complaint is dismissed. 4 But since it appears that Aragon erroneously believed he could incorporate his 5 original complaint by reference, the Court grants him additional time to amend his 6 || complaint again. Any second amended complaint must be filed by June 10, 2025, and must 7 include all claims Aragon wishes to pursue. If Aragon fails to file an amended complaint 8 || by the deadline, this entire action will be dismissed. Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 9 ||(9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his 10 ||}complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the 11 || entire action.”). 12 || Dated: May 20, 2025 14 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28