Isabel Rodriguez v. Momdoc

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02232
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Isabel Rodriguez, No. CV-25-02232-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Momdoc,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Isabel Rodriguez’s Motion for Leave to 16 Amend her Complaint (Doc. 16) and Defendant MomDoc’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). 17 The Court has considered the pending motions and rules as follows. 18 I. Motion to Amend 19 On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Defendant, alleging that 20 Defendant denied her reasonable accommodations for her disabilities in violation of the 21 Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff obtained counsel and now seeks to 22 amend her Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (Doc. 16 at 2). 23 Instead of amending her Complaint within 21 days after service of Defendant’s Motion to 24 Dismiss as permitted by Rule 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the Court’s leave 25 to file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) out of an “abundance of caution.” (Doc. 26 16 at 4). 27 Plaintiff has not yet amended the Complaint as a matter of course, and Plaintiff’s 28 Amended Complaint would have been timely because her Motion to Amend was filed || within 21 days of the Motion to Dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). The Court will treat 2|| this as Plaintiffs as-a-matter-of-course amendment, and direct Plaintiff to file her proposed 3 || First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16-1). Because Plaintiff is amending as a matter of course, 4|| the Court will not consider the factors required for leave to amend. 5 II. Motion to Dismiss 6 Because the filing of an amended complaint replaces the previous complaint, the Court finds it appropriate to deny the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Ramirez v. 8 || County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established in 9|| our circuit that an amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 12 || pleading supersedes the original.’’). 13 II. Conclusion 14 Based on the foregoing, 15 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend as a matter of course (Doc. 16) 16|| is granted. Plaintiff must file her First Amended Complaint within 5 days. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is denied without prejudice. Defendant must answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint within 14 days of when it is filed. 20 Dated this 21st day of November, 2025. 21

23 James A. Teilborg 24 Senior United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

_2-