Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company v. The Crosby Estate at Rancho Santa Fe Master Association
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered Ironshore's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which sought judgment on the original complaint's claims for declaratory relief. The court denied the motion as moot because Ironshore filed a First Amended Complaint that superseded the original complaint and alleged a distinct claim.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings denied as moot“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 28) filed by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company is denied as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering the original complaint 'non-existent.' Because the motion for judgment on the pleadings was directed at the original complaint, and the First Amended Complaint alleged a distinct claim, the motion was moot. This follows the logic of Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, which the court cited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the filing of the First Amended Complaint superseded the original complaint, thereby rendering the motion for judgment on the pleadings (which targeted the original complaint) moot. The court cited the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Ramirez) to support this procedural conclusion. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural ruling on mootness.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IRONSHORE SPECIALTY Case No.: 21-cv-1249-WQH-AHG INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 THE CROSBY ESTATE AT RANCHO 15 SANTA FE MASTER ASSOCIATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 THE CROSBY ESTATE AT RANCHO 19 SANTA FE MASTER ASSOCIATION, 20 Counter Claimant, 21 v. 22 IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 23 Counter Defendant. 24 25 HAYES, Judge: 26 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 27 28) filed by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company. 28 1 On July 9, 2021, Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) filed a 2 Complaint against The Crosby Estate at Rancho Santa Fe Master Association (“The 3 Crosby”), concerning Ironshore’s obligations under an insurance policy (the “Policy”) 4 issued by Ironshore to The Crosby. (ECF No. 1). Ironshore brought a claim under the 5 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, requesting (1) “[a] judgment 6 declaring that The Crosby must satisfy the Retention as a condition precedent prior to 7 triggering Ironshore obligations pursuant to Section VI of the Policy”; and (2) “[a] 8 judgment declaring that the Crosby must satisfy the Retention as a condition precedent 9 prior to triggering Ironshore’s indemnity obligations under the Policy.” (Id. at 13-14). 10 On August 18, 2021, The Crosby filed an Answer to the Complaint and a 11 counterclaim for competing declaratory relief. (ECF No. 19). 12 On October 14, 2021, Ironshore filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 13 pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting judgment on 14 Ironshore’s claim for declaratory relief. (ECF No. 28). On November 8, 2021, The Crosby 15 filed an Opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 32). On 16 November 15, 2021, Ironshore filed a Reply. (ECF No. 33). On June 2, 2022, the Court 17 heard oral argument on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 46). 18 On June 10, 2022, Ironshore filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). (ECF No. 48). The FAC brings a single claim for 20 declaratory relief, requesting “[a] judgment declaring that The Crosby must satisfy the 21 Retention even when the duty to defend is tendered and even if no indemnity is required.” 22 (Id. at 12). 23 “It is well-established in our circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the 24 original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” Ramirez v. County of San 25 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Ironshore’s motion requesting judgment 26 on the original Complaint’s claim for declaratory relief is rendered moot by the filing of 27 the FAC, which alleges a distinct claim. See id. (holding that an existing motion to dismiss 28 should be denied as moot when an amended complaint has since been filed). 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF 2 ||No. 28) filed by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company is 3 || denied as moot. 4 || Dated: June 13, 2022 BME: ie Z. A a 5 Hon. William Q. Hayes 6 United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28