Martinez v. Cynosure, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Defendant Cynosure, Inc. moved to dismiss Plaintiff Francisco Martinez's complaint, but the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in lieu of a response. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as moot because the amended complaint superseded the original complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant Cynosure, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is denied as moot.“As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Cynosure’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’ s Complaint.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established procedural rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering any pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court verified that the amendment was timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) and that the plaintiff had not previously amended, satisfying the conditions for leave to amend as of right. The citation to Ninth Circuit authority supports this procedural conclusion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the filing of a First Amended Complaint in lieu of a response, done timely and without prior amendments, supersedes the original complaint. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the original complaint is moot. The court cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for this proposition. The order also correctly notes that the separate motion to change venue remains pending.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, Case No. 20cv1513-MMA-BGS 11 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CYNOSURE, INC.’S v. MOTION TO DISMISS 13 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CYNOSURE, INC, 14 [Doc. No. 4] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 On August 13, 2020, Defendant Cynosure, Inc. (“Cynosure”) filed a motion to 20 dismiss Plaintiff Francisco Martinez’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint. See Doc No. 4. On 21 September 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in lieu of a 22 response to Cynosure’s motion. See Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff has not previously amended 23 his Complaint and has timely filed his FAC within twenty-one days after service of 24 Defendant’s motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, the complaint which 25 Cynosure seeks to dismiss is no longer the operative pleading in this action, as an 26 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San 27 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 28 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 1 || 693 F.3d 896, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2012)). 2 As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Cynosure’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’ s 3 ||Complaint. Cynosure’s motion to change venue, see Doc. No. 3, remains pending and set 4 hearing on September 21, 2020. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: September 9, 2020 Mhidul Ta = Ll 7 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28