Travis Switzer et al. v. City of Santa Maria et al.
This text of Travis Switzer et al. v. City of Santa Maria et al. (Travis Switzer et al. v. City of Santa Maria et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
O 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 TRAVIS SWITZER et al., Case № 2:25-cv-10716-ODW (AJRx) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 CITY OF SANTA MARIA et al., DISMISS AS MOOT [12] 15 Defendants. 16 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 On December 8, 2025, Defendants City of Santa Maria and Bladley Dandridge filed their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule” or “Rules”) 12(b)(6) Motion to 3 || Dismiss in this case. (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. No. 12.) On December 22, 2025, Plaintiffs 4|| filed a First Amended Complaint, less than twenty-one days after Defendants filed 5 || their responsive pleading. (First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 15.) Rule 15(a)(1) allows 6 || Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one 7 || days of service with a Rule 12(b) motion. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is 8 | proper. As Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss is based on a complaint that is no 9 | longer operative, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT. See Ramirez v. Cnty. 10 || of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 1] 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 December 30, 2025 ss 14 . wg Gd lliid 16 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Travis Switzer et al. v. City of Santa Maria et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travis-switzer-et-al-v-city-of-santa-maria-et-al-cacd-2025.