Kim Spangler v. County of Ventura et al

Filing 22

ORDER Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. As the pending motion to dismiss was based on a complaint that is no longer operative, the motion 19 is DENIED as MOOT. See document for details. (smo)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

Case № 2:16-cv-09174-ODW (GJS)

KIM SPANGLER,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

14

COUNTY OF VENTURA; WILLIAM

15

SCHNEEKLOTH; and DOES 1–10,
Defendants.

16
17
18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

DISMISS AS MOOT [19]

1

Defendant County of Ventura served Plaintiff Kim Spangler with a Federal

2

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this case on April 13, 2017.

3

(ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 27, 2017, fourteen

4

days later. (ECF No. 26.) Rule 15(a)(1) allows Plaintiff to file an amended complaint

5

once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of service with a Rule 12(b)

6

motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was proper. As the pending motion

7

to dismiss was based on a complaint that is no longer operative, the motion is

8

DENIED as MOOT. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008

9

(9th Cir. 2015).

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

May 3, 2017

13
14
15
16

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2