Terance Frazier v. City of Fresno

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2023
• Docket: 1:20-cv-01069
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERANCE FRAZIER, et al., No. 1:20-cv-01069-ADA-SAB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO 13 v. FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN FIVE DAYS, AND ORDERING MOTION TO 14 CITY OF FRESNO, et al., DISMISS BE DEEMED MOOT AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UPON 15 Defendants. FILING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 (ECF Nos. 31, 49, 58) 17

18 19 Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed June 17, 2022, and Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to 20 amend filed November 25, 2022, are currently pending adjudication. (ECF Nos. 31, 49.) Both 21 matters were referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the preparation of findings and 22 recommendations, or other appropriate action. (ECF Nos. 41, 50.) 23 The Magistrate Judge held oral argument on the motion to dismiss on November 9, 2022. 24 (ECF Nos. 31, 46, 47, 48.) On November 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second 25 amended complaint. (ECF No. 49.) On December 5, 2022, Defendants filed an ex parte application 26 to continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend until after the Court issues a 27 decision on the pending motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 52.) After briefing, on December 14, 2022, 28 the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s ex parte application. (ECF No. 56.) Kevin Little appeared 1 on behalf of Plaintiffs via video, and Joseph Rubin appeared on behalf of Defendants. (Id.) In 2 consideration of the procedural and substantive posture of the motions, and factoring judicial 3 economy, conserving the resources of the parties, potential prejudice to the parties, and the 4 standards for amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Court found the most 5 prudent course of action was to allow the motion for leave to amend proceed into briefing and 6 hearing, despite the fact the motion to dismiss had been briefed and heard. (ECF No. 57.) The 7 Court denied Defendants’ ex parte motion, reset the hearing on the motion to amend for February 8 8, 2023, and ordered opposition and reply briefing. (Id.) 9 On January 20, 2023, Defendants filed a statement indicating that based on the order on the 10 ex parte motion, the “City Defendants will not oppose the pending Motion to Amend, and will 11 address their concerns as to the amended pleading in an anticipated Rule 12 motion.” (ECF No. 58 12 at 2.) The filing further specifies that given Plaintiffs confirmed at the ex parte motion hearing that 13 the claims subject to the initial motion to dismiss are restated verbatim in the second amended 14 complaint, the City Defendants are unsure whether the Court desires further briefing as to those 15 issues. (Id.) 16 Given the non-opposition to the motion to amend and pending motion to dismiss that were 17 both referred for the preparation of findings and recommendations, the Court finds the most prudent 18 and efficient course of action is to grant the unopposed motion to amend despite the pending motion 19 to dismiss. See Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 20 (“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’ ” 21 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a))); see also L.R. 230(c). 22 Once an amended complaint is filed, the previous complaint becomes null and void, and 23 generally any pending motion to dismiss that was directed at the previous pleading will be thus 24 rendered moot. See Falck N. California Corp. v. Scott Griffith Collaborative Sols., LLC, 25 F.4th 25 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2022) (“The amended complaint made the First Amended Complaint no longer 26 operative.”); Huang v. Genesis Glob. Hardware, Inc., No. 220CV1713JAMKJNPS, 2020 WL 27 6318206, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2020) (“This amendment as a matter of course renders an original 28 complaint null, thereby mooting defendants’ motion to dismiss.”); Rhode v. Becerra, No. 18-CV- 1 802-BEN, 2018 WL 11445975, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2018) (“Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint 2 | supersedes the original Complaint [and] [b]cause the motion to dismiss targets the original 3 | complaint which is no longer in effect, the motion to dismiss is deemed moot.”).! Therefore, with 4 | the filing of the amended complaint, the Court finds Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be moot. 5 Accordingly, 6 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, (ECF No. 49), is GRANTED; 7 2. Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint within five (5) days of entry of 8 this order; and 9 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 31), shall be deemed MOOT and 10 DENIED without prejudice upon the filing of the second amended complaint. 11 12 13 | TPIS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _ February 6, 2023 5 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ————_ ' As for Defendants’ question regarding whether the Court desires further briefing on the issues identified 27 | in the first motion to dismiss, the Court takes no position. Defendants are free to address the amended complaint anew, and in granting of leave to amend, the Court makes no judgment pertaining to the 28 arguments raised in the previous motion to dismiss.