Gutierrez v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-02144 · 2022-01-27 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Roger T. Benitez (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:39Z · confidence high

The court considered Defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) after Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of course. The court denied the motion as moot because the Amended Complaint superseded the original complaint, and granted Defendant leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss targeting the Amended Complaint.

What the court decided	The model
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot. “Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.”	agree with court The decision follows from the procedural posture. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff was entitled to amend the complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days of service of the Rule 12(b) motion. The Amended Complaint was filed on January 25, 2022, which is within 21 days of the January 4, 2022 filing of the motion (and certainly within 21 days of service). Once an amended complaint is filed, it supersedes the original complaint, rendering any pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court correctly applied this principle and granted leave to refile, which is standard practice to allow the defendant to respond to the new pleading.
Defendant is granted leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss targeting the Amended Complaint. “Defendant shall have leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss targeting the Amended Complaint.”	agree with court Granting leave to refile is a discretionary but standard procedural remedy when a motion becomes moot due to an amendment. It preserves the defendant's right to challenge the sufficiency of the new pleading. This is a correct and appropriate procedural order.

What the court decided

The model

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot.

“Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.”

agree with court
The decision follows from the procedural posture. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff was entitled to amend the complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days of service of the Rule 12(b) motion. The Amended Complaint was filed on January 25, 2022, which is within 21 days of the January 4, 2022 filing of the motion (and certainly within 21 days of service). Once an amended complaint is filed, it supersedes the original complaint, rendering any pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court correctly applied this principle and granted leave to refile, which is standard practice to allow the defendant to respond to the new pleading.

Defendant is granted leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss targeting the Amended Complaint.

“Defendant shall have leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss targeting the Amended Complaint.”

agree with court
Granting leave to refile is a discretionary but standard procedural remedy when a motion becomes moot due to an amendment. It preserves the defendant's right to challenge the sufficiency of the new pleading. This is a correct and appropriate procedural order.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant rule (Rule 15(a)(1)(B)), applies the correct legal standard for the effect of an amended complaint (supersession), and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Ramirez) for the conclusion that the motion is moot. The grant of leave to refile is appropriate. There are no significant gaps or errors in the reasoning.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIA DELGADO GUTIERREZ, Case No.: 3:21-cv-02144-BEN-RBB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a [ECF No. 3] corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before this Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3). For the reasons 19 discussed below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. 20 On November 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Superior Court of California, 21 County of San Diego, alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Act stemming 22 from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2020 Ford Explorer. ECF No. 1. Defendant, served with 23 the Complaint on December 2, 2021, timely removed the matter to this Court on 24 December 29, 2021. Id. On January 4, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss 25 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF No. 3. On January 25, 2022, while the motion 26 to dismiss was pending, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of course 27 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). ECF No. 5. 28 1 A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of 2 || service of a Rule 12(b) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). When an amended complaint 3 filed, it “supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” 4 || Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted), 5 || overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 6 ||2012). Where a motion to dismiss targets a complaint that has been superseded by an 7 |}amended complaint, the court should deem the motion to dismiss moot. Ramirez v. Cty. 8 ||of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Defendant’s motion to 9 || dismiss targeted Plaintiff's initial Complaint, which was superseded on January 25, 2022 10 || by the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 5. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is 11 |} DENIED as moot. Defendant shall have leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss 12 || targeting the Amended Complaint. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. "

15 Dated: January 27, 2022 16 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28