Sea Mar Community Health Centers v. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education

W.D. Washington

Sea Mar Community Health Centers v. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided January 16, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-00896·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE SEA MAR COMMUNITY HEALTH CASE NO. 2:24-cv-896 ORDER Plaintiff, v. GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION, Defendant.

The Court raises this matter on its own accord. On August 5, 2024, Defendant Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (“the Council”) moved to dismiss Plaintiff Sea Mar Community Health Centers’s (“Sea Mar”) complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 39. Since then, Sea Mar has filed a First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 42, and a Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 48. Generally, “an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). “’Courts often apply this rule to motions to dismiss a complaint that has since been superseded and deny such motions as moot.’” Dahlstrom v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-01465-JHC, 2022 WL 7631419, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 13,

2022) (quoting Bisson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C12-0995-JLR, 2012 WL 5866309, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 16, 2012)). Sea Mar’s Second Amended Complaint supersedes the original complaint and is now the operative complaint here. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES as moot the Council’s pending motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 39. The Council may refile its motion to dismiss, but only if it is directed at the Second Amended Complaint.

Dated this 16th day of January, 2025. A Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE SEA MAR COMMUNITY HEALTH CASE NO. 2:24-cv-896 ORDER Plaintiff, v. GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION, Defendant.

The Court raises this matter on its own accord. On August 5, 2024, Defendant Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (“the Council”) moved to dismiss Plaintiff Sea Mar Community Health Centers’s (“Sea Mar”) complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 39. Since then, Sea Mar has filed a First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 42, and a Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 48. Generally, “an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). “’Courts often apply this rule to motions to dismiss a complaint that has since been superseded and deny such motions as moot.’” Dahlstrom v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-01465-JHC, 2022 WL 7631419, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 13,

2022) (quoting Bisson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C12-0995-JLR, 2012 WL 5866309, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 16, 2012)). Sea Mar’s Second Amended Complaint supersedes the original complaint and is now the operative complaint here. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES as moot the Council’s pending motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 39. The Council may refile its motion to dismiss, but only if it is directed at the Second Amended Complaint.

Dated this 16th day of January, 2025. A Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge

Sea Mar Community Health Centers v. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Sea Mar Community Health Centers v. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (Sea Mar Community Health Centers v. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related