Petconnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 7, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00527
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PET CONNECT RESCUE, INC., a Case No.: 3:20-cv-00527-H-KSC Maryland corporation; LUCKY PUP 12 DOG RESCUE.COM, a California ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 13 corporation; and SARAH GONZALEZ, MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE an individual, COMPLAINT AS MOOT 14

Plaintiffs, 15 [Doc. Nos. 10, 14, 15.] v. 16

DAVID SALINAS, et al., 17 Defendants. 18

19 On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff Pet Connect Rescue, Inc. filed a complaint against 20 Defendants David Salinas, Veronica Salinas, Richard Robles Pena, The Puppy Store, LLC, 21 Yellow Store Enterprises, LLC, SoCal Puppy Adoptions, Inc., Pet Connect Rescue, Inc., 22 Alysia Rothman, Ray Rothman, Jase Demetrius Shamore, Critters and Pets/Furry and 23 Feather, LLC, Rickie Gallardo, and 360 Clean N Go, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). 24 (Doc. No. 1.) On April 3, 2020, Defendants filed motions to dismiss1 Plaintiff’s complaint, 25 claiming Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. Nos. 10, 26 27 28 1 Defendants’ motions to dismiss did not comply with the Court’s procedural rules. Defendants 1 15.) On April 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Pet Connect Rescue, Inc., Lucky Pup Dog 2 ||Rescue.com, and Sarah Gonzalez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint 3 || adding federal causes of action under the Lanham Act. (Doc. No. 16.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 || 15(a)(1)(B) (permitting plaintiffs to file an amended complaint as a matter of right within 5 || ‘21 days after the service of a motion under Rule 12(b)”). 6 Since Plaintiffs’ amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, the Court 7 || denies Defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 8 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted 9 || the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that 10 || the motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot before the district court granted it.”’); 11 ||see also Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[The] amended 12 ||complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”), 13 || overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925-28 (9th Cir. 14 |/2012). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || DATED: April 7, 2020 | | | |. | | M MARILYN BE. HUFF, Distri ge 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28