Maria Elena Garcia et al. v. City of Farmersville et al.

Opinion

MARIA ELENA GARCIA et al., No. 1:21-cv-00482-DAD-EPG Plaintiffs, v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS CITY OF FARMERSVILLE et al., HAVING BEEN RENDERED MOOT Defendants. (Doc. No. 157) On September 14, 2023, defendants California Forensic Medical Group, Tracia Anderson, and Eric Krenz (the “CFMG defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment in their favor as to each of the claims asserted against them in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 157.) On October 19, 2023, plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion. (Doc. No. 169.) On October 30, 2023 the CFMG defendants filed their reply. (Doc. No. 173.) However, on October 3, 2024, a previously assigned district judge granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint. (Doc. No. 179.) On October 17, 2024, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint (Doc. No. 182), which is the operative pleading in this action. The CFMG defendants filed their answer to that third amended complaint on October 31, 2024. (Doc. No. 186.) However, on November 15, 2024, CFMG submitted a notice of filing bankruptcy and of automatic stay. (Doc. Nos. 190, 193.) On January 17, 2025, a previously assigned district judge issued an order acknowledging that the automatic stay remained in force and effect under the Bankruptcy Court’s order absent the granting of relief from the stay or amendment. (Doc. No. 197.) On January 5, 2026, plaintiffs filed a status report with this court reporting that they had obtained an order for the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Texas stating that the automatic stay extended to non-debtors in the Wellpath SF HoldCo, LLC matter before that court had expired and that plaintiffs “may proceed to judgment and collection against California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Tracia Anderson, and Eric Krenz as Defendants in the pending matter of Garcia v. City of Farmersville, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00482-KJM-EPG, pending before the District Court for Eastern District of California.” (Doc. No. 227 at 5–6.) Meanwhile, on January 13, 2026, plaintiffs settled this case as to defendants City of Farmersville, Eduardo Carrillo and Tulare County.1 (Doc. No. 231.) On January 15, 2026, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. (Doc. No. 232.) To date, the CFMG defendants have not sought to renew or re-file their motion for summary judgment or to modify the court’s scheduling order to allow them to do so. It is well- established “that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992); see also Ramirez v. County. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Consequently, the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint, and the First Amended Complaint ceased to exist.”). Because the CFMG defendants moved for summary judgment on the now-inoperative second amended complaint, that motion must be denied as having been rendered moot by plaintiff’s filing of their third amended complaint. N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Wherry, No. 20-cv-03318-CJC-JEM, 2021 WL 6104818, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021) (“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment . . . is denied as moot, as it seeks summary judgment on the now

1 The docket in this case does not appear to reflect a dismissal as to defendant S. Jajyo. That defendant is represented by the same counsel who have represented the defendant County of Tulare in this action. As noted, plaintiffs have settled all claims against the county defendant which has been dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. No. 239, 241.) Accordingly, it appears that defendant S. Jajyo is still a party to this action. nonoperative First Amended Complaint.”); Wallace v. Naphcare Healthcare, No. 3:19-cv-5329- MJP-DWC, 2020 WL 6064960, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 3, 2020) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:19-cv-5329-MJP-DWC, 2020 WL 6060432 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 14, 2020); Dasenbrock v. Enenmoh, 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA (PC), 2017 WL 1354576, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) (“Even if the First and Second Amended Complaints were identical, the court cannot properly consider a motion for summary judgment that was filed before the operative complaint was filed.”). Moreover, a review of the docket in this action reveals that the last scheduling order issued by the court required that all dispositive motions be filed on or before September 15, 2023. (Doc. No. 134.) Because that deadline has passed, and modification of the scheduling order has not been sought or granted, law and motion practice in this case is closed.2 Accordingly, 1. Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, Tracia Anderson, and Eric Krenz’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 157) is DENIED as having been rendered moot by plaintiffs’ filing of their third amended complaint; and 2. The court sets a status conference for April 20, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. before District Judge Dale A. Drozd by Zoom. The parties should be prepared to discuss at that time the scheduling of a final pre-trial conference and trial as to the remaining parties or how they otherwise propose proceeding expeditiously toward resolution of this case; and ///// ///// ///// ///// /////

2 Absent further order of this court based upon a compelling showing of good cause, the CFMG defendants will therefore not be permitted to amend or renew their motion for summary judgment. ] 3. Counsel for defendant Jayyo is ORDERED to either appear at the April 20, 2026 status conference or, prior to that hearing, file dispositional documents as to all claims against that defendant Jajyo. > | Dated: _-March 24, 2026 Da A. 2, sxe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1]