Alan Carl Westeran, M.D. v. City of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to dismiss the Original Complaint, but the Plaintiff had already filed a First Amended Complaint within the time allowed for amendment as a matter of course. The court denied the motion as moot because the amended complaint superseded the original complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED AS MOOT.“Because the court concludes that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pertains to the Original Complaint, which is no longer operative, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED AS MOOT (see 11-1 at 5).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the general rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering a pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The order recites that the First Amended Complaint was filed within 21 days of service, satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). The decision to deny as moot rather than deny on the merits is procedurally appropriate and consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 15(a)(1)(A)), verifies the factual predicate (filing within 21 days), and applies the established legal consequence (mootness of the motion to dismiss the superseded complaint). The citations are accurate and support the conclusion. The order also appropriately notes that the denial is without prejudice to a new motion against the amended complaint.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALAN CARL WESTEREN, M.D., Case No.: 26-cv-3596-AJB-DEB 12 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 13 DISMISS v. 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., (Doc. No. 11) 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 On July 14, 2026, Defendants City of San Diego, SDPD Officer Richard E. Wright, 19 SDPD Officer Michael D. Henry, and SDPD Officer Hector Sanchez (collectively 20 “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint. (Doc. No. 11.) 21 The Court finds the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral 22 argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ 23 Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) authorizes a party to amend its pleading once 25 as a matter of course no later than twenty-one days after service of the complaint. See Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A); Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernadino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1007–08 (9th 27 Cir. 2015). Once a party files an amended pleading, “the general rule is that an amended 28 complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” Lacey v. 1 || Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). As a result, filing an amended 2 ||complaint generally moots a pending motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 3 || 1008 (“Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the Plaintiff's First Amended 4 ||Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that the motion to dismiss should 5 ||have been deemed moot.”). 6 Here, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9) within twenty-one 7 ||days of serving the Original Complaint on Defendants (see Doc. Nos. 5—8). The First 8 || Amended Complaint, therefore, superseded the Original Complaint, and the Original 9 || Complaint is no longer operative. See Falck N. Cal. Corp. v. Scott Griffith Collaborative 10 || Sols., LLC, 25 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2022). Because the court concludes that Defendants’ 11 ||Motion to Dismiss pertains to the Original Complaint, which is no longer operative, the 12 || Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED AS MOOT (see 11-1 at 5). This denial is 13 || without prejudice to Defendants filing a timely motion to dismiss directed at the amended 14 || complaint. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: July 16, 2026 © □ 7 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28