SPANGLER v. COUNTY OF VENTURA, 2:16-cv-09174-ODW (GJS). (2017)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20170504979
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 03, 2017
Latest Update: May 03, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [19] OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . Defendant County of Ventura served Plaintiff Kim Spangler with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this case on April 13, 2017. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 27, 2017, fourteen days later. (ECF No. 26.) Rule 15(a)(1) allows Plaintiff to file an amended complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of service with a Rule 12(b) motion.
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [19] OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . Defendant County of Ventura served Plaintiff Kim Spangler with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this case on April 13, 2017. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 27, 2017, fourteen days later. (ECF No. 26.) Rule 15(a)(1) allows Plaintiff to file an amended complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of service with a Rule 12(b) motion. ..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [19]
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
Defendant County of Ventura served Plaintiff Kim Spangler with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this case on April 13, 2017. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 27, 2017, fourteen days later. (ECF No. 26.) Rule 15(a)(1) allows Plaintiff to file an amended complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of service with a Rule 12(b) motion. Therefore, Plaintiff's amended complaint was proper. As the pending motion to dismiss was based on a complaint that is no longer operative, the motion is DENIED as MOOT. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
