Anders v. California State University, Fresno ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CASE: 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM 8 TAYLOR ANDERS, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 9 MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, AS MOOT 10 vs. 11 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, et al., (Doc. No. 33) 12 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 In this action, Plaintiffs allege that California State University, Fresno (“Fresno State”) has 18 discriminated against female student-athletes in violation of Title IX of the Education 19 Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“Title IX”). 20 Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on February 12, 2021. Doc. No. 1. Defendants filed a motion 21 to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure on April 19, 2021, Doc. No. 33, but have not yet answered the Complaint. On May 3, 23 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Doc. No. 36. 24 Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that 25 “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course … within 21 days after service of a 26 responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)…whichever is earlier.” 27 Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B); see also, Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1 | before answer terminates the right to amend ....” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 An “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non- 3 existent.” Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and 4 |internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the FAC was timely filed less than 21 days after 5 | Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants’ April 6 |19, 2021 motion therefore attacks a “non-existent” pleading and will be denied as moot. See 7 Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. 8 ORDER 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 10 Complaint (Doc. No. 33) is DENIED as moot. 11 12 |TT IS SO ORDERED. 'S |Dated: _May 12, 2021 7 Zz 7 Cb Lec 14 _-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28