Unmasked Management, Inc. v. Century-National Insurance Company ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 UNMASKED MANAGEMENT, INC, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01129-H-MDD LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO 15 SHOP #1 LP, LUCHA LIBRE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 16 GOURMET TACO SHOP #2 LP, MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO 17 SHOP #3 LP, individually and on behalf [Doc. No. 11.] 18 of all others similarly situated, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. 21 CENTURY-NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 22 Defendant. 23 24 On June 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Unmasked Management, Inc, Lucha Libre Gourmet 25 Taco Shop #1 LP, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #2 LP, and Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco 26 Shop #3 LP (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a class action complaint against Defendant 27 Century-National Insurance Company (“Defendant”). (Doc. No. 1.) On October 22, 2020, 28 1 || Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 2 In lieu of responding to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an amended 3 complaint on November 9, 2020. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiffs had a right to file their amended 4 ||complaint without leave of the Court because they filed it within 21 days of service of 5 ||Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party may amend its 6 || pleading once as a matter of course... 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), 7 or Cf)... .”). 8 “An ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter 9 non-existent.’ Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 10 || (quoting Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 693 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other 11 || grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012)); see also Hal Roach 12 || Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). “In other 13 || words, ‘the original pleading no longer performs any function ... .”” Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 14 || 1008 (omission in original) (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 15 1992)). Accordingly, where a plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, a district court 16 treat an existing motion to dismiss the then-superseded complaint as moot. See id. 17 The Court, therefore, denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. The Court also 18 || vacates the hearing on the motion to dismiss scheduled for November 23, 2020. This Order 19 without prejudice to Defendant moving to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: November 10, 2020 | | | ul | | | 22 MARILYN HUFF, Distri ge 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 24 25 26 27 28