Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion as moot because the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which superseded the original complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is denied as moot.“In light of the filing of the amended complaint, the Court denies as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to Defendants moving to dismiss the first amended complaint.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the procedural rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering a motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court cited the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino) for this proposition. The decision to vacate the hearing is a logical administrative consequence of the motion being moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent to support the conclusion that the motion to dismiss is moot due to the filing of an amended complaint. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ALLELE BIOTECHNOLOGY AND Case No.: 20-cv-01958-H-AGS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a 9 California corporation, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 10 MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT Plaintiff, 11 v. [Doc. No. 24.] 12 PFIZER, INC., a Delaware corporation; 13 BIONTECH SE, a German company; BIONTECH US, INC., a Delaware 14 corporation; and DOES 1-30, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed 18 a complaint for patent infringement against Defendants Pfizer, Inc., BioNTech SE, and 19 BioNTech US, Inc, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,221,221. (Doc. No. 1, 20 Compl.) On February 8, 2021, Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 22 24.) A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for March 15, 2021 at 10:30 23 a.m. 24 On February 25, 2021, in lieu of filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, 25 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants. (Doc. No. 29, FAC.) See 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); see Sanford v. Motts, 258 F. 3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2001) 27 (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) gives a plaintiff one opportunity to amend as of right.”). In light of 28 the filing of the amended complaint, the Court denies as moot Defendants’ motion to 1 || dismiss the complaint without prejudice to Defendants moving to dismiss the first amended 2 ||complaint. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 3 || (“It is well-established in our circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, 4 || the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’ ... Consequently, the Plaintiff's Second 5 || Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint, and the First Amended 6 ||Complaint ceased to exist. Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the 7 || Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that the 8 ||motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot... .” (citations omitted)). The March 9 || 15, 2021 hearing date is vacated. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || DATED: February 26, 2021 | | \ual |. | | | 12 MARILYN ©. HUF F, Distri ge 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28