Miguel Esparza v. LMB Mortgage Services, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's original complaint, but Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of course before opposing the motion. The Court terminated the motion to dismiss as moot because the amended complaint superseded the original complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint (ECF No. 4) is terminated as moot.“The Court therefore TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s original Complaint (ECF No. 4).” | agree with court The decision follows from the procedural posture. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course. Once an amended complaint is filed, it supersedes the original complaint, rendering any pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court correctly identified that the original complaint is no longer operative. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the well-established principle that a motion to dismiss becomes moot upon the filing of an amended complaint that supersedes the original. The court cites the correct rule (Rule 15(a)(1)(B)) and a binding Ninth Circuit case (Valadez-Lopez) supporting the proposition that the original complaint is treated as non-existent. The reasoning is concise and legally sound for this procedural outcome.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ESPARZA, Case No. 26-cv-03962-BAS-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT 13 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL 14 LMB MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., COMPLAINT (ECF No. 4) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On September 11, 2026, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s original Complaint 19 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(f). (ECF No. 4.) 20 Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Rather, Plaintiff amended his complaint as a matter of 21 course and filed a First Amended Complaint on September 14, 2026. (ECF No. 9); see 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 23 Plaintiff’s “amended complaint supersedes” the prior edition of the complaint, 24 which is now treated as “non-existent.” See Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 25 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court therefore TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to 26 dismiss Plaintiff’s original Complaint (ECF No. 4). 27 28 1 || TS SO ORDERED. 2 ~ 3 DATED: September 17, 2026 (yatta Bahar te 4 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28