Wrightson v. DoubleTree DTWC LLC

Filing 10

ORDER denying as moot 3 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 9/14/2017. (dle)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

JESS H. WRIGHTSON,

CV 17–107–M–DWM

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

DOUBLETREE DTWC LLC,
Defendant.

In May 2017, Plaintiff Jess H. Wrightson (“Wrightson”) sued Defendant
Doubletree DTWC LLC (“Doubletree”), in the Montana Fourth Judicial District
Court, Missoula County, alleging he was wrongfully discharged from his
employment in violation of Montana law. (See Doc. 1-1, 6.) Doubletree did not
answer but rather, on August 8, 2017, removed the matter to this Court, (Doc. 1),
and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (Docs. 3, 4). Doubletree
sought relief on the grounds that Wrightson’s complaint provided no factual detail
or support for his wrongful discharge claim in violation of Rule 8(a)(2).
Wrightson then filed an amended complaint, (Doc. 7), which he believes moots
Doubletree’s motion, (Doc. 8). Doubletree did not file a reply, but answered the
1

amended complaint. (Doc. 9.)
Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B), a party may amend its pleadings once as a
matter of course “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,
21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Wrightson filed his amended
complaint within 21 days of Doubletree’s motion to dismiss. Because his
amended complaint becomes the operative complaint, it renders the pending
motion to dismiss moot. Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002,
1008 (9th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Doubletree’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 3)
is DENIED as MOOT.
DATED this 14th day of September, 2017.

2