Cazares v. City of El Centro

Opinion

| NOV 1 § 2029 | 4 || 5 □ 7 YI . 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || JONCAZARES, ) Case No.3:20-CV-1571-BEN-RBM 12 Plaintiff, © © ?) . ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 || ; DISMISS 4 | cr OF CENTRO POI ) IecPNO 6 Centro Police Department; and DOES 1- ) 16 || 10, inclusive, ) □ 17 Defendant. ) 18 ||I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Jon Cazares (“Plaintiff”) brings this action for discrimination in violation 20 the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. §§ 21 |/4301- 4333 (“USERRA”) and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. 22 ||Code §§ 12940, et seq. (““FEHA”) against Defendants City of El Centro, a public entity, 23 \land Brian Johnson, Chief of the El Centro Police Department (collectively, 24 “Defendants”). ECF No. 1. 25 Before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to Rule 26 ||12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Defendants City of El Centro □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ (the “Motions”). ECF No. 6, 9. 28 The motions were submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil □ 1.

1 |/Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 2 1112. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable 3 law, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motions as moot. BACKGROUND On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants alleging 6 |iclaims for relief for violations of (1) USERRA; (2) FEHA’s prohibition against 7 |\Military/Veteran Status Discrimination; (3) FEHA’s prohibition against Disability 8 |iDiscrimination; (4) FEHA’s prohibition against Retaliation for Requesting Reasonable 9 ||Accommodation; (5) FEHA’s prohibition against Failing to Provide Reasonable 10 || Accommodation; (6) FEHA’s prohibition against Failing to Engage in Good Faith 11 Interactive Process; and (7) FEHA’s prohibition against Failing to Prevent Discrimination 12 |\and/or Retaliation. ECF No. 1. 13 On October 5, 2020, Defendants were personally served with the complaint. ECF 14 ||No. 7, 8. On October 23, 2020, Defendant City of El Centro filed a Motion to Dismiss 15 ||the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 16 |jProcedure. ECF No. 6. On November 4, 2020, Defendant Brian Johnson also filed a 17 ||Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the 18 ||Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 9. | □ 19 On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging the same 20 ||claims for relief but adding additional allegations in response to Defendants’ Motions. 21 ||ECF No. 10, 22 On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to 23 ||Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Due to the Filing of the First Amended 24 |}Complaint. ECF No. Hh 25 DISCUSSION . 26 “It is well-established in our circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the 27 |\original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’°” Ramirez v. Cty. of San. 28 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (reversing the district court’s granting . -2- .

I the defendants’ motion to dismiss the superseded first amended complaint and the 2 resulting dismissal of the case because the timely filed second amended complaint mooted 3 |i the motion to dismiss targeted at Plaintiff's first amended complaint, which was no longer 4 effect). “[A]n issue is moot when deciding it would have no effect within the confines 5 of the case itself.” Tur v. YouTube, Inc., 562 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, © || Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss sought to dismiss Plaintiff’s original complaint, which 7 no longer operative due to Plaintiff's filing of his First Amended Complaint. Thus, 8 granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss would have no effect within the confines of this ? case. 10 tv. CONCLUSION 11 For the above reasons, the Court DENIES both Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 12 Plaintiffs original complaint and vacates the hearings set for Monday, November 23, 2020, 13 11:30 a.m., and December 7, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. The Court’s ruling is without prejudice 14 |/to Defendants’ ability to file a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. 15 ||Further, should Defendants file such a motion, the Parties should address Plaintiff's 16 |jcompliance with the California Government Claims AGt, CAL. GOV’T CODE § 815 , et seq. 17 || DATED: November LE 2020 Ag A 18 HON - ROGER T. BENITEZ 19 . United States District Judge 20 21 □ 22 | 23 24 . 25 26 27 . 28 -3-