Benson v. Myers

E.D. Washington

Benson v. Myers

DecidedMarch 13, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-03211

StatusUnknown

This text of Benson v. Myers (Benson v. Myers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benson v. Myers, (E.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Mar 13, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 DOUGLAS BENSON, NO. 1:24-CV-3211-TOR 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 10 CLAYTON MYERS, DARREN MOTION TO DISMISS HIGASHIYAMA, and LAURA 11 KUKES, 12 Defendants. 13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure 15 to State a Claim or to Abstain (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff requests oral argument on 16 this motion. ECF No. 15 at 1. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein 17 and is fully informed. The Court concludes oral argument is not necessary. For 18 the reasons discussed below Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as 19 moot. 20 // 1 DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on December 23, 2024 (ECF No. 1).

3 Defendants’ jointly filed the current motion before the Court to dismiss those 4 claims laid out in the original Complaint on January 15, 2025. ECF No. 5. 5 However, Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on February 4, 2025. ECF

6 No. 14. Defendants filed a new Joint Motion to Dismiss or Abstain (ECF No. 16) 7 and now explain that the first motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is now moot. ECF 8 No. 17 at 2. 9 It is “well-established doctrine that an amended pleading supersedes the

10 original pleading.” Ferdik v.Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 “[A]fter amendment the original pleading no longer performs any function and is 12 ‘treated as non-existent.’ ” Id. (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

13 1967)). Thus, any motion to dismiss aimed at a complaint no longer in effect 14 would therefore be moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 15 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the 16 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which is no longer in effect, we conclude

17 that the motion dismiss should have been deemed moot before the district court 18 granted it.”). 19 Because Defendants’ motion to dismiss addresses a complaint no longer in

20 effect, the Court deems it moot. 1]; ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or to 3 Abstain, ECF No. 5, is DENIED as moot. 4 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to Plaintiff and the Defendants’ counsel. 6 DATED March 13, 2025. | Hon 0%; ets 0. Kies 8 On Ke THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Mar 13, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 DOUGLAS BENSON, NO. 1:24-CV-3211-TOR 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 10 CLAYTON MYERS, DARREN MOTION TO DISMISS HIGASHIYAMA, and LAURA 11 KUKES, 12 Defendants. 13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure 15 to State a Claim or to Abstain (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff requests oral argument on 16 this motion. ECF No. 15 at 1. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein 17 and is fully informed. The Court concludes oral argument is not necessary. For 18 the reasons discussed below Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as 19 moot. 20 // 1 DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on December 23, 2024 (ECF No. 1).

3 Defendants’ jointly filed the current motion before the Court to dismiss those 4 claims laid out in the original Complaint on January 15, 2025. ECF No. 5. 5 However, Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on February 4, 2025. ECF

6 No. 14. Defendants filed a new Joint Motion to Dismiss or Abstain (ECF No. 16) 7 and now explain that the first motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is now moot. ECF 8 No. 17 at 2. 9 It is “well-established doctrine that an amended pleading supersedes the

10 original pleading.” Ferdik v.Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 “[A]fter amendment the original pleading no longer performs any function and is 12 ‘treated as non-existent.’ ” Id. (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

13 1967)). Thus, any motion to dismiss aimed at a complaint no longer in effect 14 would therefore be moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 15 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the 16 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which is no longer in effect, we conclude

17 that the motion dismiss should have been deemed moot before the district court 18 granted it.”). 19 Because Defendants’ motion to dismiss addresses a complaint no longer in

20 effect, the Court deems it moot. 1]; ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or to 3 Abstain, ECF No. 5, is DENIED as moot. 4 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to Plaintiff and the Defendants’ counsel. 6 DATED March 13, 2025. | Hon 0%; ets 0. Kies 8 On Ke THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Benson v. Myers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-myers-waed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack