Martin v. Nordic Naturals, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by the defendant. The court denied the motion as moot because the plaintiff had timely filed an amended complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to dismiss denied as moot“Accordingly, motion to dismiss is denied as moot.” | agree with court The decision follows standard civil procedure. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving or filing it. When a plaintiff files a timely amended complaint, the original complaint is superseded, rendering any pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court correctly identified this procedural posture and cited controlling Ninth Circuit authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate binding authority for the proposition that a timely amended complaint renders a pending motion to dismiss moot. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} RUTH MARTIN, Case No.: 23cv0441-L-WVG 12 Plants, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 |] Vv. DISMISS AS MOOT 14 |} NORDIC NATURALS, INC., [ECF No. 3] 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF 18 || No. 3.) Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint (ECF no. 4). See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 19 || 15(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, motion to dismiss is denied as moot. See Ramirez v. County 20 || of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 || Dated: May 9, 2023 fee oop 5 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 26 27 28