Johnson v. Rahimian, et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/30/13 DENYING AS MOOT 9 Motion to Dismiss. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Scott Johnson,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-01428-GEB-CKD

v.
Esmail Rahimian, in his
individual and representative
capacity as Trustee -Rahimian 2005 Family
Revocable Living Trust;
Parisa Rahimian, in her
individual and representative
capacity as Trustee -Rahimian 2005 Family
Revocable Living; Tiffany Le,
an individual,

16

ORDER DENYING DISMISSAL MOTION
AS MOOT

Defendants.

17
18

On October 16, 2013, Defendants Esmail Rahimian and

19

Parisa Rahimian filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint

20

under

21

arguing:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

12(b)(2)

and

Defendants no longer own the property at
issue. Rather, they sold it to a Tiffany T.
Le (on June 7, 2013) more than one month
before this case was filed on July 17,
2013. . . . This case should be dismissed
pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) as this court lacks
jurisdiction
to
grant
injunctive
relief
against the former owner.
Plaintiff’s sole claim for relief to which
attaches Federal Jurisdiction, is the First
Claim for Relief, alleging violation of the
Federal ADA law and seeks injunctive relief
1

12(b)(7),

1

against these non-owners of the property.
These Defendants would be
powerless to
respond to an injunction. . . . Therefore,
this Court is without jurisdiction under
Federal law to give Plaintiff the relief he
seeks under Federal law.

2
3
4

6

This case should be dismissed as to these
moving Defendants and the case remanded to
State Court to adjudicate the remaining State
law claims.

7

(Def.’s Mem. P.&A. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 1:23-2:6, ECF No.

8

9-1.) However, Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint

9

on October 18, 2013, (ECF No. 10), in which he added the subject

5

10

property’s

11

Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading. See Hal Roach

12

Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546

13

(9th

14

original”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. [15(a)(1)(B) (stating that

15

“[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course

16

within

17

12(b)”).

18
19
20

new

Cir.

.

owner,

1989)

.

.

21

Tiffany

(stating

days

“an

after

Le,

as

amended

service

a

defendant.

pleading

of

a

The

First

supersedes

motion

under

the

Rule

Since the referenced dismissal motion does not address
the operative pleading, it is denied as moot.
Dated:

October 30, 2013

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2