Gastelum v. Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-06234
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gastelum v. Blue Diamond, Judge Davila denied Blue Diamond’s motion to dismiss as moot after Gastelum amended his complaint.
The ruling affected Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC’s motion to dismiss the original complaint and Fernando Gastelum’s amended complaint. The court left open the possibility of a new motion challenging the amended complaint.
What happened
In Gastelum v. Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC, Blue Diamond asked the court to dismiss Fernando Gastelum’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(1). Before responding to the motion, Gastelum filed an amended complaint as allowed by the federal rules.
The court explained that a plaintiff may amend a complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days after being served with a motion under Rule 12(b). An amended complaint generally replaces the original complaint, so the motion directed at the original complaint no longer presented a live issue.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied Blue Diamond’s motion to dismiss as moot. The court said Blue Diamond could file a new motion challenging the amended complaint and could keep the currently reserved hearing date.
The detailed version
- Gastelum v. Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC · No. 5:21-cv-06234
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 4, 2022
Background
Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss Fernando Gastelum’s complaint. Gastelum’s response was due February 8, 2022. Instead of opposing the motion, and before Blue Diamond filed a responsive pleading to the original complaint, Gastelum filed an amended complaint on February 4, 2022.
Analysis
The court explained that Rule 15(a) allows a plaintiff to amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b). The court also stated that an amended pleading generally supersedes, or replaces, the original pleading. Because Gastelum amended the complaint, Blue Diamond’s motion directed at the original complaint no longer presented a live dispute. The court therefore treated the motion as moot, meaning the motion no longer required a ruling on its requested dismissal.
Disposition
Judge Edward J. Davila DENIED Blue Diamond’s motion to dismiss as moot. The court stated that Blue Diamond could file a new motion challenging the amended complaint and could retain the hearing date reserved for June 30, 2022. The order did not decide whether the amended complaint states a valid claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.