Warian Anthony, Jasmine Johanesen v. County of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered the County of San Diego's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. The court denied the motion as moot because the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and ordered the Defendants to file a responsive pleading within fourteen days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant County of San Diego's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is denied as moot.“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss as moot.” | agree with court The decision follows the general procedural rule that the filing of a new amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint, thereby rendering any pending motion to dismiss the prior complaint moot. The court correctly identified the filing of the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 69) as the operative event that mooted the motion. |
Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading within fourteen days.“Defendants will FILE responsive pleading within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural directive under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A) or 8(a) following the filing of an amended complaint, requiring the opposing party to respond to the new pleading. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the well-established principle that a new amended complaint renders a motion to dismiss the previous complaint moot. The citation to Zimmerman v. PeaceHealth supports this proposition, although it is a district court case from another circuit (W.D. Wash.) rather than binding Ninth Circuit authority, it is persuasive and consistent with general federal practice. The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural posture.
Opinion
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 |) WARIAN ANTHONY, JASMINE Case No.: 25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP 11 || JOHANESEN, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 12 Plaintiffs, | COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO’S MOTION B V. TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 4 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT 15 Defendants.| [ECF No. 63] 16 17 Before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 18 || First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint 19 || on April 1, 2026. (ECF No. 69.) An amended complaint generally moots a pending motion 20 ||to dismiss. Zimmerman vy. PeaceHealth, 701 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1108 (W.D. Wash. 2023). 21 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss as moot. Defendants will FILE 22 responsive pleading within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: April 6, 2026 2» 25 enn od Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 26 United States District Judge 27 28