Goodell v. Columbia County Public Transportation

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 21, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00226
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Aug 21, 2020 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 BRUCE GOODELL, a single person, 10 Plaintiff, NO. 2:20-CV-00226-SAB 11 v. 12 COLUMBIA COUNTY PUBLIC ORDER DISMISSING MOTIONS 13 TRANSPORTATION; COLUMBIA AS MOOT 14 COUNTY TRANSPORTATION 15 AUTHORITY; and DAVID OCAMPO, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, ECF 19 Nos. 6 and 14, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Violation of Due Process Claim 20 and to Decline Supplemental Jurisdiction, ECF No. 12. The motions were noted for 21 oral argument on September 10, 2020. However, the Court finds that oral argument 22 on the motions is no longer necessary. LCivR 7(i)(3)(B)(iii). The Court has 23 reviewed the briefing and the relevant caselaw and accordingly denies all three 24 motions as moot. 25 Background 26 The facts of this case are not particularly relevant to the disposition of the 27 pending motions. Briefly, Plaintiff alleges a myriad of discrimination and 28 retaliation claims against Defendants, his employers, arising out of whistleblowing 1 activities and because of his sexual orientation. He filed a Complaint in this Court 2 on June 17, 2020. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment 3 on the merits of one of its retaliation claims under the Washington Law Against 4 Discrimination (WLAD). ECF No. 6. In response, Defendants filed their own 5 motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14, as well as the pending motion to 6 dismiss, ECF No. 12. On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ 7 cross-motion for summary judgment and replied in support of his motion for 8 summary judgment. ECF No. 19. The next day, Plaintiff filed his First Amended 9 Complaint as a matter of course, realleging the claims in his original complaint 10 with the addition of a First Amendment retaliation claim. ECF No. 21. 11 Discussion 12 Although the Amended Complaint does not provide the basis for which it 13 was filed, it appears that the Complaint was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 15(a)(1)(B) because it was filed within 21 days after receipt of Defendants’ Rule 15 12(b) motion, ECF No. 12. Thus, the amendment was as a matter of course for 16 which leave of Court or consent of the opposing party was not required. Upon 17 filing, an amended complaint supersedes a previously filed complaint in its 18 entirety. Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 19 (citing Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on 20 other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012)). The 21 pending cross-motions for partial summary judgment, ECF Nos. 6 and 14, and 22 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Violation of Due Process Claim and to Decline 23 Supplemental Jurisdiction, ECF No. 12, target the superseded initial complaint. 24 Accordingly, those motions are moot. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 26 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 6, is denied 27 as moot. 28 1 2. Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is 2|| denied as moot. 3 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Violation of Due Process Claim and to Decline Supplemental Jurisdiction, ECF No. 12, is denied as moot. 5 4. The hearing set for September 10, 2020 is stricken. 5. Defendants shall respond to the First Amended Complaint within fourteen days. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 9|| this Order and to provide copies to counsel. 10 DATED this 21st day of August 2020. 11 12 13 ‘ Sock yl Sect IS Stanley A. Bastian 16 Chief United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22) 23 24 25 26 27 28