Larson v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to stay the complaint or, in the alternative, dismiss it for failure to state a claim. The court denied both requests as moot because the plaintiff had filed an amended complaint, noting that the stay request was based on the original complaint's similarity to another action.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim denied as moot“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the filing of an amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) supersedes the original complaint, rendering a motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. This is a standard procedural outcome. |
Motion to stay denied as moot“Further, the motion to stay is also denied as moot as the stay was based on the similarity of the allegations in the original complaint to a pending action in another district court.” | agree with court The court reasoned that the basis for the stay (similarity to another case) was tied to the original complaint. Since the original complaint is superseded, the specific basis for the stay is no longer operative in its current form, making the motion moot. The court appropriately allowed the defendants to renew the argument based on the new pleading. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct. It relies on the standard principle that an amended complaint supersedes the original, rendering motions directed at the original moot. The citation to Ramirez supports this proposition. The court also correctly preserves the defendants' ability to re-argue the stay based on the new allegations.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRI LARSON, JAMESON JAUKEN, Case No.: 3:23-CV-01238-L-BGS CHARLES KADLUBOWSKI, GEORGE 12 WERNER, MARTHA VELASQUEZ, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 DAVID JOSEPHSON, CAROL STAY OR DISMISS AS MOOT HARDIFER, CARMINE D'AMATO, 14 CAROL ALLEN, CATHERINE DAVIS, [ECF No. 7] 15 STACY REISER, SUNGWON HAN, ARIKA KUHLMANN, and RIC 16 HEATON, Individually and On Behalf of 17 All Others Similarly Situated, 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., a California 21 corporation, and HONDA MOTOR 22 COMPANY, LTD, a foreign corporation, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Pending before the court is a motion to stay the complaint, or in the alternative 26 dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint 27 (ECF No. 11.) See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is 28 1 ||denied as moot. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2 ||2015). Further, the motion to stay is also denied as moot as the stay was based on the 3 || similarity of the allegations in the original complaint to a pending action in another 4 district court. (See ECF No. 7.) Defendants may renew their arguments to stay based on 5 amended complaint. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: December 29, 2023 1 fee fp 9 H . James Lorenz, 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28