Schuyleman v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 12, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00562
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 JAY SCHUYLEMAN, CASE NO. C23-0562JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 BARNHART CRANE AND 13 RIGGING CO., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 This matter comes before the court on Defendants Barnhart Crane and Rigging 16 Co. and Barnhart Crane and Rigging, LLC’s (together, “Barnhart”) motion to dismiss 17 Plaintiff Jay Schuyleman’s original complaint. (MTD (Dkt. # 16).) Barnhart filed its 18 motion on May 24, 2023. (Id.) On June 10, 2023, Mr. Schuyleman filed an amended 19 complaint as a matter of course. (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 20)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 15(a)(1)(B) (allowing amendment as a matter of course 21 days after service of a motion 21 under Rule 12(b)). In the Ninth Circuit, the filing of “an amended complaint supercedes 22 1 [sic] the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 2 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). “Courts often apply this rule to motions to dismiss a

3 complaint that has since been superseded and deny such motions as moot.” Bisson v. 4 Bank of Am., N.A., No. C12-0995JLR, 2012 WL 5866309, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 16, 5 2012) (collecting cases). Because Mr. Schuyleman’s amended complaint has superseded 6 the original complaint and is now the operative pleading in this proceeding, the court 7 DENIES Barnhart’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 16) as moot. This ruling is without 8 prejudice to Barnhart filing a motion to dismiss, if warranted, regarding Mr.

9 Schuyleman’s amended complaint. 10 Dated this 12th day of June, 2023. 11 12 A

13 JAMES L. ROBART 14 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22