Fernando Gastelum v. Town Center Village II, LLC

S.D. California

Fernando Gastelum v. Town Center Village II, LLC

DecidedMarch 10, 2026

Docket3:25-cv-00745

StatusUnknown

This text of Fernando Gastelum v. Town Center Village II, LLC (Fernando Gastelum v. Town Center Village II, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fernando Gastelum v. Town Center Village II, LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00745-JAH-LR 10

Plaintiff, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS 12

TOWN CENTER VILLAGE II, LLC, 13 [ECF NOS. 5, 6] Defendant. 14

15 Pending before the Court is Defendant Town Center Village II, LLC (“Defendant”) 16 Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss (“Motions”). ECF Nos. 5, 6. Plaintiff Fernando 17 Gastelum (“Plaintiff”) opposed the Motions. ECF No. 12. 18 Relevant here, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on June 16, 2025, 19 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows a party to amend 20 their pleading “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 Days after service of a 21 motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” ECF No. 10. Defendant filed 22 responses to Plaintiff’s amended complaint on June 30, 2025. ECF Nos. 13, 14. 23 Given the amended complaint is now operative, the Motions filed in response to the 24 original complaint1 are now moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 25

26 27 1 The record shows that Defendant filed its Motions responding to the original complaint, ECF No. 1, on June 5, 2025, which is 36 days after service of process. See ECF Nos. 4-6. 28 1 || 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established in our circuit that an amended complaint 2 ||supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”) (internal 3 || citations and quotations omitted). 4 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Defendant’s Motions as moot. The 5 || Court will issue a ruling on Defendant’s pending motions in due course. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 g DATED: March 10, 2026

10 JNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26], 27 || form with this Court (which would have given them 60 days to respond to the original 28 complaint), the Court notes that Defendants’ Motions were filed past the 21-day filing deadline under Rule 12(a)(1).

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

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00745-JAH-LR 10

Plaintiff, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS 12

TOWN CENTER VILLAGE II, LLC, 13 [ECF NOS. 5, 6] Defendant. 14

15 Pending before the Court is Defendant Town Center Village II, LLC (“Defendant”) 16 Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss (“Motions”). ECF Nos. 5, 6. Plaintiff Fernando 17 Gastelum (“Plaintiff”) opposed the Motions. ECF No. 12. 18 Relevant here, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on June 16, 2025, 19 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows a party to amend 20 their pleading “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 Days after service of a 21 motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” ECF No. 10. Defendant filed 22 responses to Plaintiff’s amended complaint on June 30, 2025. ECF Nos. 13, 14. 23 Given the amended complaint is now operative, the Motions filed in response to the 24 original complaint1 are now moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 25

26 27 1 The record shows that Defendant filed its Motions responding to the original complaint, ECF No. 1, on June 5, 2025, which is 36 days after service of process. See ECF Nos. 4-6. 28 1 || 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established in our circuit that an amended complaint 2 ||supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”) (internal 3 || citations and quotations omitted). 4 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Defendant’s Motions as moot. The 5 || Court will issue a ruling on Defendant’s pending motions in due course. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 g DATED: March 10, 2026

10 JNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26], 27 || form with this Court (which would have given them 60 days to respond to the original 28 complaint), the Court notes that Defendants’ Motions were filed past the 21-day filing deadline under Rule 12(a)(1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fernando Gastelum v. Town Center Village II, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernando-gastelum-v-town-center-village-ii-llc-casd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack