Opinion
1:22-cv-01556-ADA-BAM
02-21-2023
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS MOOT
(ECF NOS. 9, 10)
Plaintiff Kenneth Lyle Ruffa (“Plaintiff') filed the Complaint on December 2, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on January 17, 2023, but have not yet answered the Complaint. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 12.) On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss, explaining that the FAC renders the original complaint inoperative and Defendants' motions to dismiss moot pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 16 at 2.)
Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); see also Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that “[n]either the filing nor granting of [a motion to dismiss] before answer terminates the right to amend . . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
An “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as nonexistent.” Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the FAC was timely filed less than 21 days after Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants' January 17, 2023, motions therefore attack a “non-existent” pleading and will be denied as moot. See Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008.
Accordingly, 1. Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint, (ECF Nos. 9, 10), are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.