Travis Switzer et al. v. City of Santa Maria et al.

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