(PS) Matthews v. Caliber Home Loans ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DESMAL S. MATTHEWS, No. 2:19–cv–2463–KJM–KJN (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING PREVIOUS ORDER AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 14 CALIBER HOME LOANS, et al., (ECF Nos. 3, 7) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed an action in California state court, and on December 9, 2019, Defendant 18 removed to this court. (ECF No. 1.) On December 16, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss 19 and set it for a January 16, 2020 hearing. (ECF No. 3.) Under the court’s local rules, Plaintiff 20 was obligated to file a response at least fourteen days prior to the hearing: January 2, 2020. See 21 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). The morning of January 7, the Court reviewed the docket in this case and 22 noted Plaintiff’s apparent failure to file an opposition. (ECF No. 7.) Given that Plaintiff was pro 23 se, the Court ordered the hearing continued to February 13, 2020. (Id.) Later that morning, 24 Defendants submitted a notice that Plaintiff failed to file his opposition. (See ECF No. 8.) 25 However, unbeknownst to the undersigned or Defendant, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint 26 at the public counter the day prior––which was not docketed until the Court’s order and 27 Defendants’ notice had been filed. (See ECF No. 6.) 28 /// 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows for a complaint to be amended “once as a 2 | matter of course within ...21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)....”). This 3 | amendment as a matter of course renders an original complaint null, thereby mooting Defendants’ 4 | motion to dismiss. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen a plaintiff 5 | files an amended complaint, the amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being 6 | treated thereafter as non-existent.”); see also TI, Ltd. v. Grupo Vidanta, 2019 WL 5556127, at *1 7 | (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2019) (“[Defendant’s] Motion to Dismiss the Complaint became moot once 8 | the Amended Complaint was filed.”); Bhatti v. Goldman, No. 2:14-CV-03226-ODW, 2014 WL 9 | 5089381, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2014) (same); Rector v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 2014 10 | WL 12570878, at *1 CE.D. Cal. May 30, 2014) (same); Krieger v. Atheros Commce'ns, Inc.,2011 11 | WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2011) (same). 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 as moot; 15 2. The Court’s previous order continuing the motion to dismiss hearing and ordering a 16 response from Plaintiff (ECF No. 7) is WITHDRAWN; and 17 3. The hearing (whether for January 16 or February 13) on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is 18 VACATED. 19 | Dated: January 7, 2020 Aectl Aharon 21 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 | mait.2463 23 24 25 26 27 28