Cazares v. City of El Centro et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 6 9 Motion to Dismiss. The Court DENIES both Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's original complaint and vacates the hearings set for Monday, November 23, 2020, at 11:30 a.m., and December 7, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. The Co urt's ruling is without prejudice to Defendants' ability to file a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Further, should Defendants file such a motion, the Parties should address Plaintiff's compliance with the California Government Claims Act, CAL. GOV'T CODE 815, et seq.Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/18/2020. (mme)

-,•.;,.. m: _ -:- . . . -..

..
d
tCase 3:20-cv-01571-BEN-RBM Document 13 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.115 i,Page.,.1 � 3
•.,, .�
tt," ,· of

f.

&�mLl)

,E��J

1
2

u�; ,JJ
sou-f�f'il( DI T S i f'llCT COURT
RN
IC OF CALIFORNIA
BY

3

DEPUTY

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JON CAZARES,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

CITY OF EL CENTRO, a public entity;
BRIAN JOHNSON, as Chiefofthe El
Centro Police Department; and DOES 110, inclusive,

15
16

Defendant.

17
1�
19

I.

) Case No.3:20-CV-1571-BEN-RBM
}
) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
) DISMISS
) [ECFNo. 6, 9]
)

)

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Jon Cazares ("Plaintiff') brings this action for discrimination in violation

20 of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. §§
21 - 4301- 4333 ("USERRA") and California's Fair Employment and Housi g Act, Cal. Gov.
;11

22

Code §§ 12940, et seq. ("PEHA") against Defendants City of El Centro, a public entity,

23

and Brian Johnson, Chief of the El Centro Police Department (collectively,

24
25

"Defendants"). ECF No. 1.

26

l 2(b )(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Defendants City of El Centro

27
28

Before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule
and Brian Johnson (the "Motions''). ECF No. 6, 9.
The motions were submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil
-13 :20-CV-1571-BEN-RBM

Case 3:20-cv-01571-BEN-RBM Document 13 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.116 Page 2 of 3

1
3

Local Rule 7.l(d)(l) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No.
12 .. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable
law, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motions as moot.

4 II.
5

BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants alleging

6 claims for relief for violations of (1) USERRA; (2) FEHA's · prohibition against
7 Military/Veteran Status Discrimination; (3) FEHA's prohibition against Disability
8 Discrimination; (4) FEHA's prohibition against Retaliation for Requesting Reasonable
9 Accommodation; (5) FEHA's prohibition against Failing to Provide Reasonable
10 Accommodation; (6) FEHA's prohibition against Failing to Engage in Good Faith
11

Interactive Process; and (7) FEHA's prohibition against Failing to Prevent Discrimination

12 and/or Retaliation. ECF No. 1.
13

On October 5, 2020, Defendants were personally served with the complaint. ECF

14 '.No. ·7, 8. On October 23, 2020, Defendant City of El Centro filed a Motion to Dismiss
15 . the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
16 Procedure. ECF No. 6. On November 4, 2020, Defendant Brian Johnson also filed a
1 7 Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule l 2(b)(6) of the
18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 9.
Ori November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging the same

19

20 . claims for relief but adding additional allegations in response to Defendants' Motions.
21

ECF No. 10,
On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to

22

23 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Due to the Filing of the First Amended
24 Complaint. ECF No. 11.
25
26

III.

DISCUSSION
"It is well-established in our circuit that an 'amended complaint supersedes the

27 original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent."' Ramirez v. Cty. of San
28 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (reversing the district court's granting
-23:20-CV-1571-BEN-RBM

Case 3:20-cv-01571-BEN-RBM Document 13 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.117 Page 3 of 3

1

of the defendants' motion to dismiss the superseded first amended complaint and the

2 resulting dismissal of the case because the timely filed second amended complaint mooted
3 the motion to dismiss targeted at Plaintiffs first amended complaint, which was no longer

4 in effect). "[A]n issue is moot when deciding it would have no effect within the confines
5 of the case itself." Tur v. YouTube, Inc., 562 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 2009). Here,

6 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss sought to dismiss Plaintiffs original complaint, which
7 is no longer operative due to Plaintiffs filing of his First Amended Complaint. Thus,
8 granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss would have no effect within the confines of this .
9 case.

10 IV.
11

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court DENIES both Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

12 Plaintiff's original complaint and vacates the hearings set for Monday, November 23, 2020,
13 at 11:30 a.m., and December 7, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. The Court's ruling is without prejudice
14 to Defendants'· ability to file a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
15

Further, should Defendants file such a motion, the Parties should address Plaintiff's

16 compliance with the California Government Claims
17
18

DATED:

November�2020

t, CAL. Gov'TCODE § 815, et seq.
TEZ

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-33:20-CV-1627-BEN-AGS