Cohen v. San Diego State University
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion to amend the complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff. The court granted the motion to amend, allowing the plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Amend Complaint granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a motion to dismiss. Additionally, the court noted that even if the matter-of-course window were an issue, leave would be freely given under Rule 15(a)(2) given the plaintiff's pro se status and lack of prior amendments. The decision follows standard procedural practice. |
Motion to Dismiss Complaint denied as moot“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the original complaint and Plaintiff's Motions to File Excess Pages in the original complaint are DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court Because the court granted leave to amend the complaint, the original complaint is superseded. It is standard practice to deny a motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot when the plaintiff is permitted to file an amended complaint, as the court will review the amended complaint for sufficiency. The decision is procedurally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rules for amendment (Rule 15(a)(1)(B) and 15(a)(2)) and the consequence of granting leave to amend (rendering the motion to dismiss moot). It cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority regarding the requirements for an amended complaint. There are no gaps in the reasoning for these specific procedural rulings.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KING COHEN, Case No.: 25cv1616-LL-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. AMEND COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO 14 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, DISMISS COMPLAINT AND et al., 15 MOTIONS TO FILE EXCESS PAGES IN COMPLAINT 16 Defendants.
17 [ECF Nos. 2, 12, 13, 15] 18 19 On September 5, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack 20 of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 21 under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF No. 15. Plaintiff moved 22 to amend his complaint, which, under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), he may do once as a matter of 23 course within 21 days of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 13. Given that Plaintiff 24 is acting pro se and has not previously amended, the Court would also freely grant him 25 leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) as justice so requires. 26 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. 27 ECF No. 13. By September 26, 2025, Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint. 28 Any amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to superseded | ||pleadings, and any claims not realleged in an amended complaint will be considered 2 || “waived.” See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court also 3 |}recommends that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be no more than 60 total pages. 4 ||Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the original complaint and Plaintiff's Motions to File 5 || Excess Pages in the original complaint are DENIED AS MOOT. ECF Nos. 2, 12, 15. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: September 8, 2025 NO 8 DE 9 Honorable Linda Lopez 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28