Rodriguez v. Zenni Optical, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Defendant Zenni Optical, Inc. moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), but the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint before opposing the motion. The court denied the motion to dismiss as moot, noting that the amended complaint superseded the original complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot.“In light of Plaintiff’s amended pleading, the Court denies as moot Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice to Defendant moving to dismiss the first amended complaint.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering a motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. The court properly cited Ninth Circuit authority (Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino) to support this conclusion. The decision is procedurally sound and follows standard federal practice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent to support the conclusion that the motion to dismiss is moot. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural ruling of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 REBEKAH RODRIGUEZ, individually Case No.: 23-cv-00821-H-KSC and on behalf of all others similarly 13 situated, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 14 MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT Plaintiff, 15 v. [Doc. No. 3.] 16 ZENNI OPTICAL, INC., a California 17 corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 On May 11, 2023, Defendant Zenni Optical, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 21 complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 22 (Doc. No. 3.) On May 22, 2023, in lieu of filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, 23 Plaintiff Rebekah Rodriguez filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 6.) See Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); Sanford v. Motts, 258 F. 3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Fed. R. Civ. 25 P. 15(a) gives a plaintiff one opportunity to amend as of right.”). In light of Plaintiff’s 26 amended pleading, the Court denies as moot Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 27 complaint without prejudice to Defendant moving to dismiss the first amended complaint. 28 See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well- 1 ||established in our circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 2 ||being treated thereafter as non-existent.’ . . . Consequently, the Plaintiff's Second 3 Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint, and the First Amended 4 ||Complaint ceased to exist. Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the 5 || Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that the 6 motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot... .” (citations omitted)). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATED: May 22, 2023 | | | l | | | 9 MARILYN W. HUFF, Distri ge 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- In re the Estate of Barter No. 13588 · 1890-11-26