Orlando Garcia v. Apple Seven Services SPE San Diego, Inc.

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case № 2:21-cv-00841-ODW (PVCx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS AS MOOT [7]

16 Defendants. 17 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Defendant Apple Seven Services SPE San Diego, Inc. served Plaintiff Orlando 2 || Garcia with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this case 3 | on February 21, 2021. (ECF No. 7.) On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First 4|| Amended Complaint, less than twenty-one days after Defendant filed its responsive 5 || pleading. (ECF No. 9.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows Plaintiffs to 6 || file an amended complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of 7 || service with a Rule 12(b) motion. Therefore, Plaintiff's amended complaint was 8 | proper. As the pending motion to dismiss was based on a complaint that is no longer 9 || operative, the motion is DENIED as MOOT. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San 10 || Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 11 13 March 11, 2021 ss 14 . wg Gd lliid 16 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28