Barnaba v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint that no longer named Defendant Mike Barnett. The Court dismissed Barnett from the action, denied his pending motion to dismiss as moot, and directed the Clerk to update the docket.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Mike Barnett from the action“Because Plaintiffs no longer name Mike Barnett (“Barnett”) as a defendant in operative TAC, the Court DISMISSES Barnett from this action” | agree with court The decision follows directly from the procedural rule that an amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings. Since the operative complaint does not list Barnett as a defendant, he is no longer a party to the suit. |
Denial of Mike Barnett's Motion to Dismiss as moot“and DENIES AS MOOT his pending motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 42).” | agree with court A motion to dismiss is moot if the party is no longer a defendant in the operative pleading. Because Barnett was dismissed from the action, there is no longer a claim against him to dismiss. |
Termination of Mike Barnett from the action“Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect that Barnett has been terminated from this action.” | agree with court This is a ministerial administrative order consistent with the dismissal of the defendant. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the well-established rule that an amended complaint supersedes prior versions. Since the defendant was not named in the new complaint, the court correctly dismissed him and denied his motion as moot. The reasoning is concise and legally accurate for this procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 4 5 6
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 ALEXIS ANN BARNABA, as guardian Case No.: 23-cv-01622-AJB-SBC ad litem for minor child and successor-in 12 -interest A.N.Y.; and YVETTE YOUNG, ORDER: 13 Plaintiffs, (1) DISMISSING MIKE BARNETT 14 BY OPERATION OF THE THIRD 15 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT;
16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., (2) DENYING AS MOOT MIKE 17 BARNETT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; Defendants. AND 18 19 (3) TERMINATING MIKE BARNETT FROM THE ACTION. 20 21 (Doc. No. 42)
22 23 In response to the Court’s July 24, 2025 Order, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended 24 Complaint (“TAC”) against “COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, KELLY MARTINEZ, 25 THERESA ADAMS-HYDAR, WILLIAM GORE, ERIKA FRIERSON and DOES 1 26 through 6, inclusive.” (Doc. No. 51 at 1.) “As a general rule, when a plaintiff files an 27 amended complaint, the amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated 28 thereafter as non-existent.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) 1 || Gnternal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 2 Because Plaintiffs no longer name Mike Barnett (“Barnett”) as a defendant in 3 operative TAC, the Court DISMISSES Barnett from this action and DENIES AS 4 || MOOT his pending motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 42). See id. Accordingly, the Clerk of 5 || Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect that Barnett has been terminated from 6 || this action. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: August 4, 2025 10 United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28