Beal v. Green Rush Group, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Defendant Green Rush Group, Inc. moved to dismiss Plaintiff Jordan Beal's TCPA claims, but Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in lieu of a response before the court ruled. The court denied the motion to dismiss as moot because the timely amended complaint superseded the original complaint, rendering the target of the motion inoperative.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice MOOT.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows a party to amend a pleading as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion. Because the Amended Complaint was filed within this window, it superseded the original complaint. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the original complaint became moot, as it sought to dismiss a pleading that was no longer operative. This is a standard procedural outcome in federal litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 15(a)(1)(B)), verifies the timeliness of the amendment, and applies the well-established principle that a motion to dismiss becomes moot when the underlying complaint is superseded by a timely amendment. The citations to Ninth Circuit precedent are appropriate and directly support the conclusion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JORDAN BEAL, individually and on Case No.: 20-cv-2195-MMA (BGS) 11 behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff, AS MOOT 13 v. [Doc. No. 6] 14 GREEN RUSH GROUP, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Jordan Beal (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative class action against Green 19 Rush Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer 20 Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”). See Doc. No. 1. On April 23, 2021, 21 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s TCPA claims. See Doc. No. 6. On April 22 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in lieu of a response to the pending 23 motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 7. 24 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend its pleading “as a 25 matter of course . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is timely filed under the rule and supersedes 27 the original complaint. As such, the complaint which Defendant moves to dismiss is no 28 longer an operative pleading in this action. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1 || 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Because 2 || Defendant seeks dismissal of an inoperative complaint, the pending motion to dismiss the 3 || TCPA claims contained therein is now moot. 4 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice 5 MOOT. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: April 26, 2021 g Mite MU - Ld oles 9 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28