Fitzgerald v. GEM Funding, LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-08641
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Fitzgerald v. GEM Funding, LLC, Judge Davila denied motions to dismiss and sever as moot after Fitzgerald filed an amended complaint.
Michael Scott Fitzgerald, who was representing himself, and defendants EBF Holdings, LLC, White Road Capital, LLC, IBEX Funding Group, LLC, and GEM Funding, LLC. The defendants’ motions directed at the original complaint were denied as moot, and the court allowed them to file new motions challenging the amended complaint.
What happened
In Fitzgerald v. GEM Funding, LLC, several defendants moved to dismiss Michael Scott Fitzgerald’s complaint and one defendant moved to separate the claims. Fitzgerald did not file opposition briefs by the deadlines; instead, he filed an amended complaint before the defendants filed responses to the original complaint.
The court held that the amended complaint generally replaced the original complaint. It denied the motions to dismiss and the motion to sever as moot, meaning those motions no longer required a ruling because the original complaint had been replaced. The court also gave Fitzgerald a one-time extension to amend because he was representing himself.
Judge Davila warned Fitzgerald to follow future filing deadlines or request extensions before deadlines passed. The court said the defendants could file new motions challenging the amended complaint and could keep their previously reserved hearing date.
The detailed version
- Fitzgerald v. GEM Funding, LLC · No. 5:21-cv-08641
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 28, 2022
Background
Defendants EBF Holdings, LLC, White Road Capital, LLC, IBEX Funding Group, LLC, and GEM Funding, LLC moved to dismiss Michael Scott Fitzgerald’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). A motion under Rule 12 asks the court to resolve specified problems with a complaint, including lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or failure to state a legally sufficient claim under Rule 12(b)(6). EBF Holdings also moved to sever, or separate, the claims.
Fitzgerald’s opposition briefs were due on January 20, 21, and 26, 2022, but he did not file them. Instead, on January 28, 2022, before the defendants filed responsive pleadings to the original complaint, Fitzgerald filed an amended complaint.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that a plaintiff may amend a complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a Rule 12 motion. It also explained that an amended pleading generally replaces the original pleading. Although Fitzgerald filed his amended complaint more than 21 days after EBF Holdings filed its motion, the court granted him a one-time extension because he was representing himself.
Ruling
The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and denied the motion to sever as moot. The order did not decide the merits of the claims in the original complaint. The court stated that the defendants could file new motions challenging the amended complaint and could retain their previously reserved June 9, 2022 hearing date. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.