Jesus Vargas v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 JESUS VARGAS. Case № 2:25-cv-04288-ODW (PVCx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 THE BOEING COMPANY et al., DISMISS AS MOOT [15] 15 Defendants. 16 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 On June 3, 2025, Defendant The Boeing Company served Plaintiff Jesus Vargas 2 || with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the First Amended 3 || Complaint in this case. (ECF No. 15.) On June 16, 2025, pursuant to the stipulation 4|| of the parties and the Court’s leave, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. 5 || (ECF No. 19.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows plaintiffs to file an 6 || amended complaint with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. 7|| Therefore, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was proper. As the pending 8 | motion to dismiss is based on a pleading that is no longer operative, the motion is DENIED as MOOT. (ECF No. 15); see Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 10 | 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 June 17, 2025 15 es

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

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28