Francis Rodrick; Robert Dade; and Jamie Pabilonia v. Toyota Motor North America Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.; and Toyota
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), but Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint as of right before the motion was resolved. The court denied the motion as moot and vacated the scheduled hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint as Moot is denied as moot.“In light of Plaintiffs’ amended pleading, the Court denies as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to Defendants moving to dismiss the first amended complaint.” | agree with court The decision follows directly from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) and Ninth Circuit precedent. Because the plaintiff filed an amended complaint as of right, the original complaint was superseded and ceased to exist. A motion to dismiss a pleading that no longer exists is moot. The court correctly preserved the defendants' right to move to dismiss the new pleading. |
The hearing scheduled for September 14, 2026, is vacated.“The September 14, 2026 hearing is vacated.” | agree with court Since the motion to dismiss is moot, the hearing to consider it is no longer necessary. This is a standard procedural consequence of denying a motion as moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that the filing of a first amended complaint as of right supersedes the original complaint. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Ramirez) to support the conclusion that the motion to dismiss the original complaint is moot. The reasoning is concise and directly answers the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCIS RODRICK; ROBERT DADE; Case No.: 26-cv-03210-H-JLB and JAMIE PABILONIA, 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, 13 MOTION TO DISMISS v. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AS 14 MOOT TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA 15 INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR [Doc. No. 16.] 16 ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and TOYOTA 17 MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., 18 Defendants. 19 20 On July 20, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint 21 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 22 16.) A hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for Monday, 23 September 14, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. On August 10, 2026, in lieu of filing an opposition to 24 the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint as of right. (Doc. No. 24, 25 FAC.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); Sanford v. Motts, 258 F. 3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 26 2001) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) gives a plaintiff one opportunity to amend as of right.”). 27 In light of Plaintiffs’ amended pleading, the Court denies as moot Defendants’ 28 motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to Defendants moving to dismiss the 1 || first amended complaint. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 2 || (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established in our circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes 3 ||the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’ . . . Consequently, the 4 || Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint, and the 5 ||First Amended Complaint ceased to exist. Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss 6 ||targeted the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we 7 ||conclude that the motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot... .” (citations 8 ||}omitted)). The September 14, 2026 hearing is vacated. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || DATED: August 11, 2026 lil | | | i MARILYN ¥®. HUFF, Distri ge 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28