Moreno Ortega v. Nissan North America, Inc.

E.D. California

Moreno Ortega v. Nissan North America, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 19, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-01581·Unknown

Opinion

CARLOS EMMANUEL MORENO Case No. 1:22-cv-01581-ADA-EPG ORTEGA, Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO v. DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., (ECF No. 6) Defendant.

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action bringing California state law claims arising from an allegedly defective vehicle. (ECF No. 1). On January 4, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). (ECF No. 6). On January 12, 2023, the presiding District Judge referred the motion to dismiss for the preparation of findings and recommendations or other appropriate action. (ECF No. 9). On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 10). As Plaintiff’s amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect [after Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint], we conclude that the motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot before the district court granted it.”). Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) be denied as moot. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

(9th Cir. 1991)). Tr IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _January 19, 2023 [Je hey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CARLOS EMMANUEL MORENO Case No. 1:22-cv-01581-ADA-EPG ORTEGA, Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO v. DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., (ECF No. 6) Defendant.

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action bringing California state law claims arising from an allegedly defective vehicle. (ECF No. 1). On January 4, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). (ECF No. 6). On January 12, 2023, the presiding District Judge referred the motion to dismiss for the preparation of findings and recommendations or other appropriate action. (ECF No. 9). On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 10). As Plaintiff’s amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect [after Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint], we conclude that the motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot before the district court granted it.”). Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) be denied as moot. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

(9th Cir. 1991)). Tr IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _January 19, 2023 [Je hey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Moreno Ortega v. Nissan North America, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Moreno Ortega v. Nissan North America, Inc. (Moreno Ortega v. Nissan North America, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related