Jahmira Hinton v. TransUnion LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered Defendant TransUnion LLC's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was rendered moot when the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that superseded the original complaint. The court allowed the amendment and denied the motion as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is allowed to stand as the operative pleading.“the Court exercises its discretion to allow for this amendment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), (a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'freely given' standard of Rule 15(a)(2) to allow the amendment despite the expiration of the 21-day period in Rule 15(a)(1). The order recites the procedural history (filing of FAC, answer to FAC) sufficient to support the exercise of discretion. |
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied as moot.“Defendant’s Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that a motion challenging a pleading is moot once that pleading is superseded by an amended complaint. The citations to Royal Canin and Ramirez support this conclusion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that the filing of the First Amended Complaint superseded the original complaint, rendering the motion for judgment on the pleadings moot. The court properly cited binding Ninth Circuit authority and recent Supreme Court authority to support this procedural conclusion. The reasoning is concise and legally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Case No.: 26-cv-01091-DMS-MSB 9 JAHMIRA HINTON, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 11 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS TRANSUNION LLC, 12 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant TransUnion LLC’s Motion for Judgment on 18 the Pleadings (“Motion”) filed on April 8, 2026. (ECF No. 10). On April 27, 2026, 19 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), in addition to her 20 opposition filed a few days earlier. (ECF Nos. 14, 15). On May 11, 2026, Defendant filed 21 an answer to the FAC. Although Plaintiff’s deadline to amend as a matter of course had 22 passed and she did not seek leave of court before filing the FAC, the Court exercises its 23 discretion to allow for this amendment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), (a)(2) (“The court 24 should freely give leave when justice so requires.”). 25 “If a plaintiff amends her complaint, the new pleading supersedes the old one: The 26 original pleading no longer performs any function in the case.” Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. 27 v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025) (citation modified). Any motion targeting the 28 earlier pleading is thereafter moot. Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1 }}1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Plaintiff's FAC is the operative pleading and 2 || Defendant’s Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: June 24, 2026 J \ 5 rn Yn « 6 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28