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)

Download PDF
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?