Wright v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered Defendant Ulta's motion to dismiss the initial complaint, which was rendered moot when Plaintiff Wright filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). The court denied the motion as moot and ordered Ulta to respond to the Amended Complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as Moot“Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Ulta’s Motion. (ECF No. 7.)” | agree with court The decision follows from the procedural posture. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff may amend a complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. The order recites that Wright filed the Amended Complaint within this timeframe without seeking leave. Because the Amended Complaint supersedes the initial Complaint, the motion to dismiss the initial Complaint is moot. The court correctly applied the rule and the cited authority. |
Order for Defendant to Respond to Amended Complaint“The Court further ORDERS Ulta to respond to the Amended Complaint, or request an extension to do so, in accordance with Rule 15(a)(3).” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order following the filing of an amended complaint. Rule 15(a)(3) requires the court to set a time for the opposing party to respond to the amended pleading. The court's order is consistent with this rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct. It accurately identifies the rule governing amendment as of right (Rule 15(a)(1)(B)), confirms the amendment was timely, and correctly concludes that the motion to dismiss the superseded complaint is moot. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the mootness principle. The order to respond to the amended complaint is also standard and correct under Rule 15(a)(3).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOAN WRIGHT, Case No. 22-cv-1954-BAS-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS AS MOOT 14 ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & (ECF No. 7) FRAGRANCE, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 19 Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (“Ulta”) moved to dismiss 20 Plaintiff Joan Wright (“Wright”)’s initial Complaint on February 17, 2023. (ECF No. 7.) 21 Instead of opposing Ulta’s motion, Wright filed her Amended Complaint. Wright does not 22 move for leave of court to file the Amended Complaint; rather, she amends her pleading as 23 of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a)(1)(B). Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 25 days after service of a responsive pleading[.]”). 26 Wright’s Amended Complaint supersedes and replaces her initial Complaint and, 27 thus, renders moot Ulta’s motion to dismiss that original pleading. See Forsyth v. Humana, 28 Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (overruled on other grounds in Lacey v. 1 || Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012)). Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS 2 || MOOT Ulta’s Motion. (ECF No. 7.) The Court further ORDERS Ulta to respond to the 3 || Amended Complaint, or request an extension to do so, in accordance with Rule 15(a)(3). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 5 || DATED: March 7, 2023 Ypilag (Lyohaa 6 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28