Augustine v. Lenovo (United States), Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
Defendant Lenovo filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint, but Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint. The court denied the motion to dismiss as moot and ordered the defendant to respond to the amended complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.“Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.” | agree with court The decision follows standard civil procedure; when a plaintiff files an amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), the original complaint is superseded, rendering any pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court correctly cited the Ninth Circuit authority for this proposition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate binding authority for the proposition that an amended complaint renders a pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. It is a standard procedural order with no substantive legal gaps.
Opinion
I 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 || OPHELIA AUGUSTINE, Case No.: 22-cv-2027-L-AHG Plaintitt.| ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 8 || V. DISMISS AS MOOT 9 || LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., [ECF No. 8] 10 Defendant. 11 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff 13 || timely filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 14 || Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot. Ramirez v. County of San 15 || Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Defendant shall file a response to the 16 |}amended complaint, if any, no later than the time provided for in Federal Rule of Civil 17 || Procedure 15(a)(3). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: April 3, 2023 fee Soop 22 H . James Lorenz, 33 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28