Vuz v. DCSS III, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint, but Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) before the court ruled on the motion. The court denied the motion as moot because the amended complaint superseded the original pleading, and vacated the scheduled hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot.“The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' motion to dismiss and VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 27, 2020.” | agree with court The decision follows directly from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) and Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Because the plaintiff filed the amendment within the 21-day window after service of the motion, the original complaint was no longer the operative pleading, rendering the motion to dismiss that complaint moot. |
The hearing scheduled for April 27, 2020, is vacated.“The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' motion to dismiss and VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 27, 2020.” | agree with court Vacating the hearing is a logical procedural consequence of denying the underlying motion as moot, as there is no longer a pending motion requiring a hearing on the original complaint. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering a pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court cites the correct Federal Rule and binding Ninth Circuit precedent to support this conclusion. The reasoning is complete for the specific procedural posture presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ASHLEY R. VUZ, an individual, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00246-H-AGS 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 15 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 16 DCSS III, INC., a California corporation dba GOSSIP GRILL, et al., 17 [Doc. No. 22.] Defendants. 18 19 20 Currently pending before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 22.) 21 On March 27, 2020, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss. (Id.) On April 17, 2020, 22 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 33.) “A party may amend its pleading once 23 as a matter of course . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) . . . 24 .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff therefore had a right to file an amended complaint 25 without leave of the court. 26 An amended complaint supersedes a prior complaint as a pleading. Forsyth v. 27 Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard 28 Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). Therefore, where a plaintiff elects to 1 file an amended complaint, a district court may treat an existing motion to dismiss as moot. 2 The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' motion to dismiss and VACATES the 3 hearing scheduled for April 27, 2020. This order is without prejudice to Defendants moving 4 to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: April 20, 2020 7 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28