Unmasked Management, Inc. v. Century-National Insurance Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, and Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion as moot because Plaintiffs timely filed an amended complaint that superseded the original complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint is denied as moot.“The Court, therefore, denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering any pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court also correctly noted that Plaintiffs had the right to amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) because the amendment was filed within 21 days of service of the Rule 12(b) motion. The decision to deny the motion as moot rather than simply dismissing it is a standard procedural mechanism to clear the docket while preserving the defendant's right to challenge the new pleading. |
The hearing on the motion to dismiss scheduled for November 23, 2020, is vacated.“The Court also vacates the hearing on the motion to dismiss scheduled for November 23, 2020.” | agree with court Because the motion was denied as moot, the associated hearing is no longer necessary. This is a logical and standard administrative consequence of the primary ruling. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule for amendment as a matter of course, applies the correct legal standard regarding the superseding nature of an amended complaint, and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority to support the conclusion that the motion to dismiss is moot. The reasoning is concise and directly answers the procedural posture of the case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 UNMASKED MANAGEMENT, INC, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01129-H-MDD LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO 15 SHOP #1 LP, LUCHA LIBRE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 16 GOURMET TACO SHOP #2 LP, MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO 17 SHOP #3 LP, individually and on behalf [Doc. No. 11.] 18 of all others similarly situated, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. 21 CENTURY-NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 22 Defendant. 23 24 On June 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Unmasked Management, Inc, Lucha Libre Gourmet 25 Taco Shop #1 LP, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #2 LP, and Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco 26 Shop #3 LP (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a class action complaint against Defendant 27 Century-National Insurance Company (“Defendant”). (Doc. No. 1.) On October 22, 2020, 28 1 || Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 2 In lieu of responding to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an amended 3 complaint on November 9, 2020. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiffs had a right to file their amended 4 ||complaint without leave of the Court because they filed it within 21 days of service of 5 ||Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party may amend its 6 || pleading once as a matter of course... 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), 7 or Cf)... .”). 8 “An ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter 9 non-existent.’ Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 10 || (quoting Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 693 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other 11 || grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012)); see also Hal Roach 12 || Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). “In other 13 || words, ‘the original pleading no longer performs any function ... .”” Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 14 || 1008 (omission in original) (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 15 1992)). Accordingly, where a plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, a district court 16 treat an existing motion to dismiss the then-superseded complaint as moot. See id. 17 The Court, therefore, denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. The Court also 18 || vacates the hearing on the motion to dismiss scheduled for November 23, 2020. This Order 19 without prejudice to Defendant moving to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: November 10, 2020 | | | ul | | | 22 MARILYN HUFF, Distri ge 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 24 25 26 27 28