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

United States District Court Central District of California PRIESTLEY FAUCETT, individually Case № 2:22-cv-04948-ODW (ASx) and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. DISMISS AS MOOT [15] MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, Defendant. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Case 2:22-cv-04948-ODW-AS Document 19 Filed 09/13/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:102

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