Priestley Faucett v. Move, Inc.

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-04948-ODW-AS Document 19 Filed 09/13/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:101

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 PRIESTLEY FAUCETT, individually 11 Case № 2:22-cv-04948-ODW (ASx) and on behalf of all others similarly 12 situated, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 v. DISMISS AS MOOT [15] 15 MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Case 2:22-cv-04948-ODW-AS Document 19 Filed 09/13/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:102

1 Defendant Move, Inc. (“Move”) filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 || 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this case on August 31, 2022. (ECF No. 15.) On 3 || September 12, 2022, Plaintiff Priestley Faucett filed a First Amended Complaint, 4|| twelve days after Move filed its responsive pleading. (ECF No. 18.) Federal Rule of 5 || Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows Plaintiff to file an amended complaint once as a 6 || matter of course within twenty-one days of service with a Rule 12(b) motion. 7 || Therefore, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was proper. Because Move’s pending 8 | Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) was based on a complaint that is no longer operative, 9 | the motion is DENIED as MOOT, and the Court VACATES the October 3, 2022 10 || hearing on that motion. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 11 | (9th Cir. 2015). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 September 13, 2022 ss 16 wg Géedllii 18 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28