Filed: Jun. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [9] OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On April 3, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 9.) On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, pursuant to the parties' stipulation. ( See ECF Nos. 15, 19.) In the interim, Plaintiff also moved to remand this case to Los Angeles Superior Court. (ECF No. 16.) As Defendants based their pending Mot
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [9] OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On April 3, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 9.) On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, pursuant to the parties' stipulation. ( See ECF Nos. 15, 19.) In the interim, Plaintiff also moved to remand this case to Los Angeles Superior Court. (ECF No. 16.) As Defendants based their pending Moti..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [9]
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
On April 3, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 9.) On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, pursuant to the parties' stipulation. (See ECF Nos. 15, 19.) In the interim, Plaintiff also moved to remand this case to Los Angeles Superior Court. (ECF No. 16.)
As Defendants based their pending Motion to Dismiss on a complaint that is no longer operative, the Court DENIES the Motion (ECF No. 9), as MOOT. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissing motion to dismiss as moot where plaintiff filed amended complaint, which became the operative pleading).
On May 29, 2018, the Court took Plaintiff's Motion to Remand under submission. (ECF No. 23.) Defendants' response to the First Amended Complaint is currently due June 11, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). To the extent the parties agree to postpone Defendants' deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint until after the Court rules on the Motion to Remand, they may file a stipulation and proposed order reflecting their agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
