Myra Steen v. American National Insurance Company

C.D. California

Myra Steen v. American National Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 3, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-11226·Unknown

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 MYRA STEEN, Individually, and as Case № 2:20-cv-11226-ODW (SKx) 12 successor-in-interest to JANICE 13 WILLIAMS and on Behalf of the Class, et ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 al., DISMISS AS MOOT [29] 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 19 Defendant. 20 On November 9, 2021, Defendant American National Insurance Company 21 served Plaintiffs Myra Steen and Janet Williams with a Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29.) On November 24, 23 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, fifteen days after Defendant filed its 24 Motion. (ECF No. 30.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows plaintiffs to 25 file an amended complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of being 26 served with a Rule 12(b) motion. While Rule 15(a)(1) does not expressly indicate 27 whether it applies when, as here, a first motion to dismiss was mooted some time ago 28 by the staying of the case, it appears that application of Rule 15(a)(1) in this instance 1 || would effectuate its purpose of giving a pleading party one opportunity early on in the 2|| proceedings to adjust their pleading. Moreover, Defendant has not filed any 3 || opposition to amendment, and the parties agree that the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance Company has a direct effect 5|| on their own case. Amendment therefore furthers justice as provided by Rule 6 || 15(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ leave to amend in this instance arises from both Rule 15(a)(1) and Rule 15(a)(2). 8 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was proper. As Defendant’s pending Motion to 9 || Dismiss was based on a complaint that is no longer operative, the Motion is DENIED 10 | as MOOT. (ECF No. 29); see Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 11 | 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 12 14 15 December 3, 2021 ss 16 fy Gidllid 18 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 MYRA STEEN, Individually, and as Case № 2:20-cv-11226-ODW (SKx) 12 successor-in-interest to JANICE 13 WILLIAMS and on Behalf of the Class, et ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 al., DISMISS AS MOOT [29] 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 19 Defendant. 20 On November 9, 2021, Defendant American National Insurance Company 21 served Plaintiffs Myra Steen and Janet Williams with a Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29.) On November 24, 23 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, fifteen days after Defendant filed its 24 Motion. (ECF No. 30.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows plaintiffs to 25 file an amended complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of being 26 served with a Rule 12(b) motion. While Rule 15(a)(1) does not expressly indicate 27 whether it applies when, as here, a first motion to dismiss was mooted some time ago 28 by the staying of the case, it appears that application of Rule 15(a)(1) in this instance 1 || would effectuate its purpose of giving a pleading party one opportunity early on in the 2|| proceedings to adjust their pleading. Moreover, Defendant has not filed any 3 || opposition to amendment, and the parties agree that the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance Company has a direct effect 5|| on their own case. Amendment therefore furthers justice as provided by Rule 6 || 15(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ leave to amend in this instance arises from both Rule 15(a)(1) and Rule 15(a)(2). 8 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was proper. As Defendant’s pending Motion to 9 || Dismiss was based on a complaint that is no longer operative, the Motion is DENIED 10 | as MOOT. (ECF No. 29); see Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 11 | 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 12 14 15 December 3, 2021 ss 16 fy Gidllid 18 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Myra Steen v. American National Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Myra Steen v. American National Insurance Company (Myra Steen v. American National Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related