Ruffa v. Southern California Edison Company ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH LYLE RUFFA, No. 1:22-cv-01556-ADA-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS 13 v. MOOT 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (ECF Nos. 9, 10) COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Kenneth Lyle Ruffa (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint on December 2, 2022. (ECF 19 No. 1.) Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), 20 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on January 17, 2023, but have not yet answered 21 the Complaint. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 22 (“FAC”). (ECF No. 12.) On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motions 23 to dismiss, explaining that the FAC renders the original complaint inoperative and Defendants’ 24 motions to dismiss moot pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 25 16 at 2.) 26 Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that 27 “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . within 21 days after service of a 28 responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . whichever is earlier.” 1 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); see also Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 2 | 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that “[n]Jeither the filing nor granting of [a motion to dismiss] 3 | before answer terminates the right to amend ... .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 4 An “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non- 5 | existent.” Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and 6 | internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the FAC was timely filed less than 21 days after 7 | Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants’ 8 | January 17, 2023, motions therefore attack a “non-existent” pleading and will be denied as moot. 9 | See Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint, (ECF Nos. 9, 10), are DENIED as moot. 12 13 14 | IIS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ February 21, 2023 6 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28