Estate of Derek Valentine v. County of Merced

E.D. California

Estate of Derek Valentine v. County of Merced

DecidedJune 28, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-01697

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Estate of Derek Valentine v. County of Merced, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ESTATE OF DEREK VALENTINE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01697-JLT-SAB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO EITHER FILE A NOTICE OF 13 v. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR A NOTICE INFORMING COURT WHY 14 COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., MOTIONS ARE NOT MOOT

15 Defendants. FIVE DAY DEADLINE

16 17 On February 9, 2024, Defendant CFMG filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) On 18 February 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendant CFMG’s motion to dismiss. (ECF 19 No. 19.) On February 28, 2024, Defendants County of Merced, Merced County Sheriff’s Office, 20 and Vernon Warnke filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 20.) The motions were referred to the 21 undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (ECF Nos. 17, 21.) On 22 March 4, 2024, Defendant CMCG filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 23.) On 23 March 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s filed an opposition to County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF 24 No. 24.) On March 15, 2024, the County Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 27.) 25 A hearing on the motions was held on April 3, 2024. (ECF No. 29.) The motion was 26 argued, and the parties were ordered to file supplemental briefing. (Id.) On April 27, 2024, 27 Defendant CFMG filed a supplemental brief. (ECF No. 30.) On May 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a response. (ECF No. 32.) Defendant CFMG filed a reply on May 8, 2024. (ECF No. 33.) The 1 motions have been fully briefed and are ready of decision. 2 On June 25, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation for the filing of a first amended complaint 3 and a first amended complaint was filed. (ECF Nos. 34, 35.) The parties’ stipulation did not 4 address the motions to dismiss nor has a notice of withdrawal of the motions been filed. 5 The original complaint is no longer the operative complaint in this matter as it has been 6 superseded by the filing of the amended complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 7 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint). “[A]fter 8 amendment the original pleading no longer performs any function and is ‘treated thereafter as 9 non-existent[.]” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 10 1992). When a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the amended complaint becomes the 11 operative complaint and renders any pending motions to dismiss moot. Anderson v. Bank of 12 Am., N.A., No. 215CV00198EJLREB, 2016 WL 7494304, at *1 (D. Idaho Jan. 13, 2016); see 13 also Prencipe v. Pishevar, No. CV 23-2570-GW-ASX, 2023 WL 5505870, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 14 20, 2023) (denying motion to dismiss and motion to strike as moot after filing of amended 15 complaint); A.R.D. v. Kerry, No. CV-14-00150-PHX-BSB, 2014 WL 12617410, at *1 (D. Ariz. 16 Aug. 19, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss as moot after filing of amended complaint); but see 17 Taylor v. Wolf, No. CV 20-39-M-DLC, 2020 WL 5893845, at *2 (D. Mont. Oct. 5, 2020) 18 (quoting 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476, 638 (3d ed. 2005)) 19 (noting that if “some of the defects raised in the original motion remain in the new pleading, the 20 court simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended pleading”). 21 Here, the motions to dismiss were generally based on Plaintiffs’ failure to plead sufficient 22 facts to state a plausible claim and the amended complaint contains additional factual allegations. 23 Further, the motions moved to dismiss the claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and 24 Rehabilitation Act which are not alleged in the amended complaint. Therefore, the Court it 25 appears that Defendants motions to dismiss should be denied as moot. 26 /// 27 /// 1 Accordingly, Defendants shall file a notice to withdraw their motions to dismiss or a 2 | notice as to why these motions are not moot within five (5) days of the date of this order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 Dated: _ June 28, 2024

‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ESTATE OF DEREK VALENTINE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01697-JLT-SAB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO EITHER FILE A NOTICE OF 13 v. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR A NOTICE INFORMING COURT WHY 14 COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., MOTIONS ARE NOT MOOT

15 Defendants. FIVE DAY DEADLINE

16 17 On February 9, 2024, Defendant CFMG filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) On 18 February 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendant CFMG’s motion to dismiss. (ECF 19 No. 19.) On February 28, 2024, Defendants County of Merced, Merced County Sheriff’s Office, 20 and Vernon Warnke filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 20.) The motions were referred to the 21 undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (ECF Nos. 17, 21.) On 22 March 4, 2024, Defendant CMCG filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 23.) On 23 March 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s filed an opposition to County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF 24 No. 24.) On March 15, 2024, the County Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 27.) 25 A hearing on the motions was held on April 3, 2024. (ECF No. 29.) The motion was 26 argued, and the parties were ordered to file supplemental briefing. (Id.) On April 27, 2024, 27 Defendant CFMG filed a supplemental brief. (ECF No. 30.) On May 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a response. (ECF No. 32.) Defendant CFMG filed a reply on May 8, 2024. (ECF No. 33.) The 1 motions have been fully briefed and are ready of decision. 2 On June 25, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation for the filing of a first amended complaint 3 and a first amended complaint was filed. (ECF Nos. 34, 35.) The parties’ stipulation did not 4 address the motions to dismiss nor has a notice of withdrawal of the motions been filed. 5 The original complaint is no longer the operative complaint in this matter as it has been 6 superseded by the filing of the amended complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 7 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint). “[A]fter 8 amendment the original pleading no longer performs any function and is ‘treated thereafter as 9 non-existent[.]” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 10 1992). When a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the amended complaint becomes the 11 operative complaint and renders any pending motions to dismiss moot. Anderson v. Bank of 12 Am., N.A., No. 215CV00198EJLREB, 2016 WL 7494304, at *1 (D. Idaho Jan. 13, 2016); see 13 also Prencipe v. Pishevar, No. CV 23-2570-GW-ASX, 2023 WL 5505870, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 14 20, 2023) (denying motion to dismiss and motion to strike as moot after filing of amended 15 complaint); A.R.D. v. Kerry, No. CV-14-00150-PHX-BSB, 2014 WL 12617410, at *1 (D. Ariz. 16 Aug. 19, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss as moot after filing of amended complaint); but see 17 Taylor v. Wolf, No. CV 20-39-M-DLC, 2020 WL 5893845, at *2 (D. Mont. Oct. 5, 2020) 18 (quoting 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476, 638 (3d ed. 2005)) 19 (noting that if “some of the defects raised in the original motion remain in the new pleading, the 20 court simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended pleading”). 21 Here, the motions to dismiss were generally based on Plaintiffs’ failure to plead sufficient 22 facts to state a plausible claim and the amended complaint contains additional factual allegations. 23 Further, the motions moved to dismiss the claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and 24 Rehabilitation Act which are not alleged in the amended complaint. Therefore, the Court it 25 appears that Defendants motions to dismiss should be denied as moot. 26 /// 27 /// 1 Accordingly, Defendants shall file a notice to withdraw their motions to dismiss or a 2 | notice as to why these motions are not moot within five (5) days of the date of this order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 Dated: _ June 28, 2024

‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Estate of Derek Valentine v. County of Merced, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-derek-valentine-v-county-of-merced-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack