Emily Lucas v. The Regents of the University of California, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which was rendered moot by the parties' agreement and the court's order allowing the filing of a Second Amended Complaint. The court terminated the motion as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) is terminated as moot.“The Court therefore TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8).” | agree with court The decision follows from the procedural posture. The parties agreed to allow a Second Amended Complaint, the court granted that joint motion, and the Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. Under the rule that an amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint, the motion to dismiss the superseded complaint is moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard rule that a new amended complaint supersedes the previous one, rendering any pending motion to dismiss the previous version moot. The court cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for this proposition. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order terminating a moot motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMILY LUCAS, Case No. 26-cv-02774-BAS-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT 13 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST 14 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 8) Defendants. 16 17 18 On August 14, 2026, Defendant County of San Diego moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s 19 First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 8.) 20 Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Rather, the parties agreed to allow Plaintiff to file a 21 Second Amended Complaint and filed a joint motion to that effect on August 28, 2026. 22 (ECF No. 13.) On September 1, 2026, the Court granted the joint motion and ordered 23 Plaintiff to file her Second Amended Complaint no later than September 8, 2026. (ECF 24 No. 14.) Plaintiff timely filed her Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2026. 25 (ECF No. 17.) 26 Plaintiff’s “amended complaint supersedes” the prior edition of the complaint, 27 which is now treated as “non-existent.” See Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 28 1 || (9th Cir. 2011). The Court therefore TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to 2 || dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8). 3 |} IT ISSO ORDERED. 4 ~ > || DATED: September 9, 2026 (yatta Bahar ke 6 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28