Panzl v. United Airlines, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered two motions to dismiss filed by defendants after the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The court ordered that both motions to dismiss are denied as moot because the amended complaint superseded the original complaint targeted by the motions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant United’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is denied as moot.“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that both Defendant United’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and Defendant Mennel’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) are denied as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows a party 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 Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) on September 5, 2025, which was within 21 days of the August 15, 2025 filing of the motions to dismiss. Under the rule and the cited Ninth Circuit precedent (Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino), the FAC supersedes the original complaint, rendering the motions to dismiss the original complaint moot. The decision follows directly from the procedural timeline and the cited authority. |
Defendant Mennel’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is denied as moot.“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that both Defendant United’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and Defendant Mennel’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) are denied as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows a party 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 Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) on September 5, 2025, which was within 21 days of the August 15, 2025 filing of the motions to dismiss. Under the rule and the cited Ninth Circuit precedent (Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino), the FAC supersedes the original complaint, rendering the motions to dismiss the original complaint moot. The decision follows directly from the procedural timeline and the cited authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant rule (Rule 15(a)(1)(B)), applies the 21-day window to the specific dates in the record (August 15 filing, September 5 amendment), and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Ramirez) to support the conclusion that the amended complaint supersedes the original, rendering the motions moot. 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 TIMOTHY PANZL, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2046-WQH-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ERIC MENNEL, and DOES 1 to 100, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff Timothy Panzl (“Plaintiff”) initiated this case by filing a 19 Complaint against Defendants United Airlines, Inc. (“Defendant United”), Eric Mennel 20 (“Defendant Mennel”), and Defendants Does 1 to 100 in the Superior Court of the State of 21 California for the County of San Diego, where it was assigned case number 25CU029301C. 22 (ECF No. 1.) On August 8, 2025, Defendants United and Mennel removed the action to 23 this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Id. 24 On August 15, 2025, Defendant United filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 25 Complaint (“Defendant United’s Motion to Dismiss”). (ECF No. 4.) That same day, 26 Defendant Mennel also filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Defendant 27 Mennel’s Motion to Dismiss”). (ECF No. 5.) 28 1 On September 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against 2 || Defendants. (ECF No. 8.) 3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “if [a] pleading is one to which a 4 ||responsive pleading is required,” “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of 5 ||course no later than... 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. 6 ||P. 15(a)(1); see also Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 7 2015) (stating that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) allows a Plaintiff to “amend once within twenty-one 8 || days after service” of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6)). In this case, Plaintiff timely filed the 9 || FAC within 21 days after service of the pending Motions to Dismiss. “Consequently, [ ] 10 || Plaintiff's [FAC] supersede[s] the [Complaint], and the [Complaint] cease[s] to exist.” 11 || Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. Because Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss target 12 Plaintiff's superseded complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that both Defendant 13 || United’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and Defendant Mennel’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 14 || No. 5) are denied as moot. See id. 15 16 7 Dated: September 12, 2025 itt Z. A a 18 Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28