Jane Roe 6 v. International Churches of Christ, Inc.

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 JANE ROE 6 et al. Case № 2:23-cv-00999-ODW (PLAx) 11 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [51] 13 v. 14 INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF 15 CHRIST, INC. et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 On May 31, 2023, Defendants Alberto Schirmer and Anna Maria Schirmer filed 2 || a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Jane Roe 6 and Jane Roe 7’s Complaint pursuant to 3 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 51.) On June 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, less than twenty-one days after 5 || Defendants filed their motion. (ECF No. 57.) Rule 15(a)(1) allows Plaintiffs to file 6 || an amended complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of service of 7 || a Rule 12(b) motion. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was proper under the 8 | Rules. As the pending motion to dismiss is based on a complaint that is no longer 9 || operative, the motion is DENIED as MOOT. (ECF No. 51.) See Ramirez v. Cnty. of 10 || San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 June 23, 2023 ss 15 es

7 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28