ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the court are: (1) Defendant Bank of America's ("BOA") motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (1st MTD (Dkt. # 7)); and (2) Plaintiff Barbara Robinson's motion to amend her complaint (MTA (Dkt. # 13)). No party has filed an opposition to Ms. Robinson's motion (see generally Dkt.), and the time for doing so has now expired, see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3). Defendants Wells Fargo Bank National Association, As Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the MLMI Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificate Series 2005 WMC2 ("Wells Fargo"), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ("MERS"), Nationstar Mortgage LLC ("Nationstar"), and Jay Bray state that they do not object to Ms. Robinson's amended complaint. (See 2d MTD (Dkt. # 19) at 2). Accordingly, the court GRANTS Ms. Robinson's motion. As a result, BOA's motion to dismiss Ms. Robinson's original complaint is now moot, and the court DENIES BOA's motion on that ground.

II. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

On January 13, 2017, Wells Fargo, Nationstar, MERS, and Mr. Bray removed this action from King County Superior Court to federal court. (Notice of Rem. (Dkt. # 1).) On January 20, 2017, BOA filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Robinson's complaint. (See 1st MTD.) On February 3, 2017, Ms. Robinson filed a motion to amend her complaint. (See MTA.) On March 30, Wells Fargo, MERS, Nationstar, and Mr. Bray filed a second motion to dismiss Ms. Robinson's proposed amended complaint. (See 2d MTD.) In their motion, Wells Fargo, MERS, Nationstar and Mr. Bray state that they do not object to Ms. Robinson's amended complaint. (Id. at 2.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a [required] responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b). . . whichever is earlier." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Ms. Robinson filed her motion to amend her complaint within 21 days of BOA's motion to dismiss. (See 1st MTD; MTA.) Accordingly, Ms. Robinson may amend her complaint "as a matter of course" this one time, and the court, therefore, grants her motion to amend.

Ms. Robinson's amended complaint (Dkt. ## 13-1, 13-2) is now the operative complaint in this proceeding and supersedes Ms. Robinson's original complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (recognizing "the general rule . . . that an amended complaint supercedes [sic] the original complaint and renders it without legal effect"). Because Ms. Robinson's original complaint no longer has any legal effect, BOA's motion to dismiss that complaint is moot. Accordingly, the court denies BOA's motion on that ground.

Presently pending is a second motion to dismiss by Wells Fargo, MERS, Nationstar, and Mr. Bray. (See 2d MTD.) The noting date for the second motion is April 21, 2017. (See id. at 1.) The court directs Ms. Robinson to file her response to the second motion to dismiss no later than Monday, April 17, 2017. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. 7(d)(3) ("Any opposition papers shall be filed and served not later than the Monday before the noting date."). Although Ms. Robinson may seek leave to further amend her complaint in her response to the second motion to dismiss, the court will decline to entertain any further motions to amend the complaint until after the court resolves the pending second motion to dismiss.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court GRANTS Ms. Robinson's motion to amend her complaint (Dkt. # 13). Ms. Robinson's amended complaint (Dkt. ## 13-1, 13-2) is now the operative complaint in this proceeding. Accordingly, the court DENIES BOA's motion to dismiss Ms. Robinson's original complaint as moot (Dkt. # 7). The court further DIRECTS Ms. Robinson to file her response, if any, to the second motion to dismiss no later than Monday, April 17, 2017.