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