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

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00896
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 SEA MAR COMMUNITY HEALTH CASE NO. 2:24-cv-896 8 CENTERS, ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION, 12 Defendant. 13

14 The Court raises this matter on its own accord. On August 5, 2024, 15 Defendant Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (“the Council”) 16 moved to dismiss Plaintiff Sea Mar Community Health Centers’s (“Sea Mar”) 17 complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 39. Since then, Sea Mar has filed a 18 First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 42, and a Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 19 48. 20 Generally, “an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and 21 renders it without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 22 2012). “’Courts often apply this rule to motions to dismiss a complaint that has since 23 1 been superseded and deny such motions as moot.’” Dahlstrom v. Life Care Centers of 2 Am., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-01465-JHC, 2022 WL 7631419, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 13,

3 2022) (quoting Bisson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C12-0995-JLR, 2012 WL 5866309, 4 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 16, 2012)). Sea Mar’s Second Amended Complaint 5 supersedes the original complaint and is now the operative complaint here. 6 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES as moot the Council’s pending motion to 7 dismiss. Dkt. No. 39. The Council may refile its motion to dismiss, but only if it is 8 directed at the Second Amended Complaint.

9 10 Dated this 16th day of January, 2025. 11 A 12 Jamal N. Whitehead 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23