Unmasked Management, Inc. v. Century-National Insurance Company

S.D. California

Unmasked Management, Inc. v. Century-National Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. California·Decided November 10, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-01129·Unknown

Opinion

UNMASKED MANAGEMENT, INC, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01129-H-MDD LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO SHOP #1 LP, LUCHA LIBRE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S GOURMET TACO SHOP #2 LP, MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO SHOP #3 LP, individually and on behalf [Doc. No. 11.] of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v. COMPANY, Defendant.

On June 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Unmasked Management, Inc, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #1 LP, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #2 LP, and Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #3 LP (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a class action complaint against Defendant Century-National Insurance Company (“Defendant”). (Doc. No. 1.) On October 22, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. In lieu of responding to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2020. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiffs had a right to file their amended complaint without leave of the Court because they filed it within 21 days of service of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course... 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), or Cf)... .”). “An ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter non-existent.’ Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 693 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012)); see also Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). “In other words, ‘the original pleading no longer performs any function ... .”” Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008 (omission in original) (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, where a plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, a district court treat an existing motion to dismiss the then-superseded complaint as moot. See id. The Court, therefore, denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. The Court also vacates the hearing on the motion to dismiss scheduled for November 23, 2020. This Order without prejudice to Defendant moving to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. DATED: November 10, 2020 | | | ul | | | MARILYN HUFF, Distri ge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

UNMASKED MANAGEMENT, INC, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01129-H-MDD LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO SHOP #1 LP, LUCHA LIBRE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S GOURMET TACO SHOP #2 LP, MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO SHOP #3 LP, individually and on behalf [Doc. No. 11.] of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v. COMPANY, Defendant.

On June 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Unmasked Management, Inc, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #1 LP, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #2 LP, and Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #3 LP (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a class action complaint against Defendant Century-National Insurance Company (“Defendant”). (Doc. No. 1.) On October 22, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. In lieu of responding to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2020. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiffs had a right to file their amended complaint without leave of the Court because they filed it within 21 days of service of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course... 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), or Cf)... .”). “An ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter non-existent.’ Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 693 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012)); see also Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). “In other words, ‘the original pleading no longer performs any function ... .”” Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008 (omission in original) (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, where a plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, a district court treat an existing motion to dismiss the then-superseded complaint as moot. See id. The Court, therefore, denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. The Court also vacates the hearing on the motion to dismiss scheduled for November 23, 2020. This Order without prejudice to Defendant moving to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. DATED: November 10, 2020 | | | ul | | | MARILYN HUFF, Distri ge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Unmasked Management, Inc. v. Century-National Insurance Company, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Unmasked Management, Inc. v. Century-National Insurance Company (Unmasked Management, Inc. v. Century-National Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related