Rebeka Rodriguez v. TouchNet Information Systems, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant after the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The court denied the motion as moot because the amendment was timely filed as a matter of course under Rule 15(a).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 6) denied as moot“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 6) is 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 its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b). The order recites that the First Amended Complaint was filed on June 18, 2026, and the Motion to Dismiss was filed on May 28, 2026. Assuming the motion was served within the 21-day window preceding the FAC (which is implied by the court's finding that the FAC was 'timely filed... within 21 days after service'), the amendment was valid as a matter of course. Consequently, the original complaint was superseded, rendering the motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. This is a standard procedural outcome. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant rule (Rule 15(a)), applies the 21-day window to the facts presented (filing dates), and cites controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Ramirez) to support the conclusion that the motion is moot. The reasoning is concise but complete for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, an Case No.: 26-cv-02601-WQH-MSB individual, 11 ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 TOUCHNET INFORMATION 14 SYSTEMS, INC., a Kansas entity 15 d/b/a www.Touchnet.com, Defendant. 16 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint 19 against Defendant Touchnet Information Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the Superior Court 20 of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Case No. 25CU058032C. (ECF No. 21 1-2.) 22 On April 23, 2026, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) 23 On May 28, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) 24 On June 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 7.) 25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “if the 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 P. 15(a); see also Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 1 2015) (stating that Rule 15 allows a plaintiff to “amend once within twenty-one days after 2 ||service” of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6)). Here, Plaintiff timely filed the FAC within 21 3 || days after service of the pending Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 6). The pending 4 || Motion to Dismiss Complaint “target[s]” the original Complaint, which is “no longer in 5 || effect,” and must therefore be denied as moot. Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 6) is 7 denied as moot. 8 9 10 || Dated: June 18, 2026 BME: ie 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