Hinojosa v. Equifax Information Services, LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JUSTICE HINOJOSA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00195-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO TERMINATE MOTION TO STRIKE AS 13 TRANS UNION, LLC, MOOT 14 Defendant. (ECF No. 11) 15 16 On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff Justice Hinojosa filed this action, alleging violations of 17 the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (ECF No. 1). Defendant Trans Union, LLC filed its answer on 18 March 10, 2022. (ECF No. 10). Arguing that the answer was insufficient, Plaintiff moved to 19 strike portions of the answer and deem certain allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint as admitted; or, 20 alternatively, an order requiring Defendant to amend its answer. (ECF No. 11). The motion to 21 strike was referred to the undersigned. (ECF No. 13). 22 The Court held a hearing on the motion to strike on May 20, 2022, with Defendant 23 agreeing to file an amended answer by June 3, 2022, and Plaintiff being given a deadline of June 24 17, 2022, to file a supplemental brief, if any, regarding any remaining alleged deficiencies in the 25 amended answer. (ECF No. 30). On June 3, 2022, Defendant filed an amended answer. To date, 26 Plaintiff has not filed a supplemental brief in support of Plaintiff’s motion to strike, and the time 27 to do so has expired. 28 1 Given “the well-established doctrine that an amended pleading supersedes the original 2 | pleading,” Defendant’s amended answer has superseded its initial answer, which “no longer 3 | performs any function.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended 4 | (May 22, 1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(2) (noting that an “answer to a complaint” is a pleading). 5 | And because Plaintiff has not challenged, in a supplemental filing, Defendant’s amended 6 || answer—the operative pleading in this case—Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s initial 7 || answer has been rendered moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 8 | (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the Plaintiffs First 9 | Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that the motion to dismiss 10 | should have been deemed moot before the district court granted it.”’). 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate □□□□□□□□□□□ 12 | motion to strike (ECF No. 11) as moot. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 | Dated: _ June 21, 2022 [Je heey 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28