Louay Awad v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss filed by Amazon.com Services LLC and a motion by the pro se plaintiff for leave to electronically file documents. The court denied the motion to dismiss as moot because the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, and granted the plaintiff's motion to electronically file documents.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot.“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FAC is the operative pleading and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a motion to dismiss a complaint is rendered moot when the plaintiff files an amended complaint that supersedes the original pleading. The order cites the relevant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) and controlling case law to support this procedural outcome. |
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents is granted.“Plaintiff has met these requirements and accordingly, his Motion is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the local administrative policies regarding electronic filing for pro se parties. The order states that the plaintiff met the requirements of demonstrating equipment/software capabilities and agreeing to follow rules, which is the correct standard for granting such administrative relief. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the filing of the First Amended Complaint rendered the pending motion to dismiss moot, citing appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority. It also correctly grants the administrative motion for electronic filing based on compliance with local court policies.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Case No.: 26-cv-03883-DMS-BJW 9 LOUAY AWAD, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 11 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC et al., 12 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T O E L E C T R O N I C A L L Y 13 Defendants. FILE DOCUMENTS 14 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC’s Motion to 18 Dismiss filed on July 13, 2026. (ECF No. 5). On July 17, 2026, Plaintiff, proceeding pro 19 se, filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 7); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) 20 (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than: (A) 21 days 21 after serving it, or (B) . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) . . 22 . .”). 23 “If a plaintiff amends her complaint, the new pleading supersedes the old one: The 24 original pleading no longer performs any function in the case.” Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. 25 v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025) (citation modified). Any motion targeting the 26 earlier pleading is thereafter moot. Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 27 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FAC is the operative pleading and 28 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. The hearing set for August 28, 1 2026 is hereby VACATED. 2 Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Electronically File 3 ||Documents. (ECF No. 8). “A pro se party seeking leave to electronically file documents 4 || must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment 5 software capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies” in the 6 ||manual. S.D. Cal. Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual 7 2(b). Plaintiff has met these requirements and accordingly, his Motion is GRANTED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: July 20, 2026 2» 10 rn Yn « 11 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28