TI, Limited v. Vidanta
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
Defendant Chavez moved to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(2)-(6) after removing the case to federal court. The court denied the motion as moot because the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that superseded the original complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Dismiss denied as moot“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2)-(6) (ECF No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering a motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The order cites the correct rule (Rule 15(a)(1)) and case law (London v. Coopers & Lybrand) to support this procedural conclusion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the filing of an Amended Complaint under Rule 15(a)(1) supersedes the original complaint, thereby mooting the pending motion to dismiss the original complaint. The citation to London v. Coopers & Lybrand is appropriate for the Ninth Circuit.
Opinion
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 TI, LIMITED Case No: 3:19-cv-01830-WQH-KSC 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER v. 10 GRUPO VIDANTA; DANIEL 11 CHAVEZ; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 12 Defendants. 13 HAYES, Judge: 14 The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 15 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)-(6) filed by Defendant Chavez. 16 (ECF No. 3). 17 On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff TI, Limited commenced this action by filing a 18 Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, assigned 19 case number 37-2019-00034144-CU-BC-CTL, against Defendant Grupo Vidanta and 20 Defendant Chavez. (ECF No. 1 at 1). On September 23, 2019, Defendant Chavez 21 removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction, 28 22 U.S.C. § 1441(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Id. at 1-3. On September 30, 2019, Defendant 23 Chavez filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 3). On October 21, 2019, 24 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading in this case. 25 (ECF No. 4). 26 Plaintiff had a right to file an Amended Complaint pursuant to the Federal Rules 27 of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (“A party may amend its pleading once 1 || as a matter of course within ... 21 days after serving it, or ... if the pleading is one to 2 || which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading 3 || or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.). 4 || Once filed, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint in its entirety. See 5 || London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendant Chavez’s 6 || Motion to Dismiss the Complaint became moot once the Amended Complaint was filed. 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 8 || pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2)-(6) (ECF No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT. 9 Dated: October 28, 2019 Litton 2. Klayn I] Hon, William Q, Hayes 12 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 +