Petrick v. Stars Bay Area, Inc
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:19-cv-03105
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Petrick v. Stars Bay Area, Judge Demarchi denied Stars Bay Area’s motion to dismiss as moot after Petrick filed an amended complaint.
Kristen Petrick and the other plaintiffs, and Stars Bay Area, Inc.; the motion to dismiss the original complaint was denied as moot.
What happened
In Kristen Petrick, et al. v. Stars Bay Area, Inc., Stars Bay Area asked the court to dismiss Petrick’s complaint under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion argues that a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim.
Before Stars Bay Area filed a response to the original complaint, Petrick filed an amended complaint instead of opposing the motion. The opinion explains that a plaintiff may amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after being served with a Rule 12(b) motion, and that an amended complaint generally replaces the original complaint.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied Stars Bay Area’s motion to dismiss as moot and vacated the hearing scheduled for January 5, 2021. The order did not decide whether Petrick’s claims had merit.
The detailed version
- Petrick v. Stars Bay Area, Inc · No. 5:19-cv-03105
- Virginia Demarchi
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
Stars Bay Area, Inc. moved to dismiss Kristen Petrick’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Before Stars Bay Area filed a responsive pleading to the original complaint, Petrick filed an amended complaint on December 11, 2020, instead of filing an opposition to the motion. Rule 15(a) permits a plaintiff to amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion. An amended pleading generally supersedes, or replaces, the original pleading.
Ruling
The court denied Stars Bay Area’s motion to dismiss as moot because Petrick had filed an amended complaint. The court also vacated the hearing scheduled for January 5, 2021. The order did not resolve the merits of Petrick’s claims or state whether the amended complaint would survive a later challenge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.