Fernando Gastelum v. Town Center Village II, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Malcolm F. Marsh (author)
Analysis
The court considered the defendant's motion to strike and motion to dismiss, which were filed in response to the original complaint. The court denied the motions as moot because the plaintiff filed an operative amended complaint that superseded the original complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss are denied as moot.“Accordingly, the Court HERBY DENIES Defendant’s Motions as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering motions directed at the original complaint moot. The order recites the timeline showing the amended complaint was filed before the defendant's responses, making the original complaint non-operative. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that the amended complaint superseded the original complaint, making the motions directed at the original complaint moot. The citation to Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino is appropriate and directly supports the conclusion. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural ruling on mootness.
Opinion
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00745-JAH-LR 10 Plaintiff, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS 12 TOWN CENTER VILLAGE II, LLC, 13 [ECF NOS. 5, 6] Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant Town Center Village II, LLC (“Defendant”) 16 Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss (“Motions”). ECF Nos. 5, 6. Plaintiff Fernando 17 Gastelum (“Plaintiff”) opposed the Motions. ECF No. 12. 18 Relevant here, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on June 16, 2025, 19 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows a party to amend 20 their pleading “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 Days after service of a 21 motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” ECF No. 10. Defendant filed 22 responses to Plaintiff’s amended complaint on June 30, 2025. ECF Nos. 13, 14. 23 Given the amended complaint is now operative, the Motions filed in response to the 24 original complaint1 are now moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 25 26 27 1 The record shows that Defendant filed its Motions responding to the original complaint, ECF No. 1, on June 5, 2025, which is 36 days after service of process. See ECF Nos. 4-6. 28 1 || 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established in our circuit that an amended complaint 2 ||supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”) (internal 3 || citations and quotations omitted). 4 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Defendant’s Motions as moot. The 5 || Court will issue a ruling on Defendant’s pending motions in due course. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 g DATED: March 10, 2026 10 JNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26], 27 || form with this Court (which would have given them 60 days to respond to the original 28 complaint), the Court notes that Defendants’ Motions were filed past the 21-day filing deadline under Rule 12(a)(1).