Dempsey v. Government Employees Insurance Company et al
Filing
44
ORDER REGARDING 42 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; TERMINATING AS MOOT 26 30 MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/6/2024. (ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2024)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
REYNA DEMPSEY, individually, on behalf
of others similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public,
8
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
12
13
Case No. 24-cv-00425-EJD
ORDER REGARDING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT;
TERMINATING AS MOOT MOTIONS
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Re: ECF Nos. 26, 30, 42
Defendants.
14
Plaintiff initiated this civil rights class action on January 24, 2024. On April 25, 2024,
15
16
following multiple stipulations extending their deadline to respond to the complaint, Defendants
17
filed motions to dismiss the complaint on grounds including failure to state a claim under Federal
18
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See ECF Nos. 26, 30. The Court subsequently granted the
19
parties’ stipulation to extend the related opposition and reply deadlines, and Plaintiff’s opposition
20
became due on June 6, 2024. See ECF No. 38.
On June 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”). See
21
22
ECF No. 42. In general, a party “may amend a pleading . . . to which a responsive pleading is
23
required” “once as a matter of course no later than[] . . . 21 days after service of a motion under
24
Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Although Plaintiff did not seek leave to file the FAC1
25
26
27
28
1
The parties’ May 3, 2024 Joint Case Management Statement discussed potential amendments,
but the statement was filed within the 21-day window and the subsequent stipulation to extend
Plaintiff’s deadline to file her oppositions did not mention amendment. See ECF Nos. 35, 36.
Case No.: 24-cv-00425-EJD
ORDER RE FAC; TERMINATING AS MOOT DEFTS.’ MOTS. TO DISMISS
1
1
and filed it more than 21 days after Defendants served their motions to dismiss, the Court finds
2
that striking the FAC and requiring that Plaintiff request leave to file it—which the Court would
3
grant—would be inefficient.
4
The Court therefore accepts the FAC as filed, and accordingly terminates as moot
5
Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss and the related briefing deadlines and hearing date.
6
Defendants’ 21-day deadline to respond to the FAC falls on June 27, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 6, 2024
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 24-cv-00425-EJD
ORDER RE FAC; TERMINATING AS MOOT DEFTS.’ MOTS. TO DISMISS
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?