Jashua Sweeney, individually and for all others similarly situated v. Griffis Group of Companies, LLC, dba Griffis Residential
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss a class action complaint that had been superseded by a timely filed First Amended Complaint. The court ordered that the motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) denied as moot“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is denied as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which permits 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 May 29, 2026, within 21 days of the May 15, 2026 service of the Motion to Dismiss. Under Ninth Circuit precedent (Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino), a timely filed amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering the original complaint non-existent. Therefore, a motion to dismiss the original complaint is moot because the document it targets no longer exists. The court's conclusion follows logically from the procedural rules and the facts recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 15(a)(1)(B)), verifies the timeliness of the amendment based on the dates provided, and applies the correct legal consequence (mootness of the motion to dismiss the superseded complaint). It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the proposition that the amended complaint supersedes the original.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASHUA SWEENEY, Case No.: 26-cv-01742-WQH-JLB individually and for all others 12 similarly situated, ORDER 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 GRIFFIS GROUP OF 16 COMPANIES, LLC, dba GRIFFIS RESIDENTIAL, 17 Defendant. 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff Jashua Sweeney (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action 20 Complaint against Defendant Griffis Group of Companies, LLC dba Griffis Residential 21 (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) On May 15, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the 22 Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 6.) 23 On May 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against 24 Defendant. (ECF No. 9.) 25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “if [a] pleading is one to which a 26 responsive pleading is required,” “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of 27 course no later than . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. 28 1 ||P. 15(a)(1); see also Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2 2015) (stating that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) allows a Plaintiff to “amend once within twenty-one 3 || days after service” of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6)). In this case, Plaintiff timely filed the 4 ||FAC within 21 days after service of the pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6). 5 ||“Consequently, [ ] Plaintiff's [FAC] supersede[s] the [Complaint], and the [Complaint] 6 || cease[s] to exist.” Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. 7 Because the pending Motion to Dismiss targets Plaintiff's superseded Complaint, IT 8 || IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is denied as moot. 9 10 ||Dated: June 3, 2026 itt Z. Maa 11 Hon. William Q. Hayes 2 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28