Cantu v. Sound United LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Because the plaintiff filed a timely amended complaint, the court denied the motion as moot.
| 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 federal 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 When a plaintiff files a timely amended complaint, the original complaint is superseded, rendering any pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot.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 applied this procedural rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the filing of a timely amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) supersedes the original complaint, thereby rendering the pending motion to dismiss moot. The citation to Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino supports this standard procedural outcome in the Ninth Circuit.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || JESSE CANTU, Case No.: 23cv0841-L-BLM 12 Plants, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 |] Vv. DISMISS AS MOOT 14 |} SOUND UNITED LLC, [ECF No. 6] 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF 18 || No. 6.) Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint (ECF no. 9). 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 Dated: June 7, 2023 1 foe fy H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 25 26 27 28