Fuqua v. Associated Credit Service Inc et al
Filing
19
ORDER Denying 12 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and 13 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (PL, Case Administrator)
1
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
2
Jan 18, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
3
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
4
5
JESSICA FUQUA and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8
9
No. 17-CV-00324-SMJ
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MOTION TO
STRIKE
ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICE,
INC., a Washington corporation, PAUL
K. WASSON AND JANE DOE
WASSON, husband and wife,
10
Defendants.
11
12
Before the Court, without oral argument, are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
13
Complaint Without Prejudice Pursuant to FRCP 4, ECF No. 12, and Motion to
14
Strike Amended Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 15, ECF No. 13. Defendants argue
15
that Plaintiff erred by serving only the amended complaint and not effecting service
16
of the original complaint. However, because Plaintiff amended and served her
17
complaint within the time-frame permitted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
18
4 and 15, Defendants have not articulated a valid basis to dismiss the claims.
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) governs the time limit for service of
20
the original complaint: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
ORDER - 1
1
complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—
2
must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that
3
service be made within a specified time.” Here, Plaintiff served the complaint
4
within the 90-day window provided under Rule 4(m). Plaintiff filed the original
5
complaint on September 15, 2017. The 90-day statutory deadline was December
6
16, 2017. On December 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the
7
Court. On December 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time for service
8
of the complaint. On December 15, 2017, Plaintiff served the amended complaint
9
on Defendants.
10
Defendants argue that Plaintiff improperly effected service by serving only
11
the amended complaint. This argument appears to stem from a misunderstanding of
12
which document operates as the complaint. An amended complaint becomes the
13
operative pleading and renders the original complaint without legal effect. See
14
Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, “where an
15
amended pleading supersedes the original complaint, ‘subsequent service of the
16
superseded prior or original pleading is improper.’” Giles v. United States, 906 F.2d
17
1386 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08 [7] (Supp.
18
1960)). Because Plaintiff amended the complaint before it was served, service of
19
only the amended complaint was proper.
20
ORDER - 2
1
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff erred by amending the complaint without
2
leave of Court. This argument is similarly unfounded. Rule 15 provides that a
3
plaintiff may amend as a matter of course at any time within “21 days after serving
4
it.” Under Defendants’ interpretation of this rule, Plaintiff does not have a right to
5
amend the complaint if the complaint has not been served. However, courts have
6
consistently held that this rule establishes only the latest date upon which a plaintiff
7
may amend a pleading without leave of court. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Cty. of San
8
Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases recognizing right
9
to amend within 21 days of service); United States ex rel. D’Agostino v. EV3, Inc.,
10
802 F.3d 188, 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (explaining that the 2009 amendments to Rule 15
11
did not alter the longstanding rule that a “plaintiff is allowed to amend as a matter
12
of course at any time between filing his complaint and receiving the defendant’s
13
answer”); Thompson v. Stanford Univ., 16-CV-06826-BLF, 2017 WL 2772033, at
14
*3 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2017) (“The Ninth Circuit, as well as the Fed. R. Civ. P. 15
15
advisory committee’s note to 2009 amendment, thus clearly recognize this right to
16
amend a complaint until 21 days after service of the complaint.”). Because Plaintiff
17
amended her complaint before the original complaint was served, the amendment
18
was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Accordingly, Defendants have been timely
19
served with the correct pleadings.
20
ORDER - 3
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
1.
to FRCP 4, ECF No. 12, is DENIED.
3
4
2.
7
8
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Amended Complaint Pursuant to FRCP
15, ECF No. 13, is DENIED.
5
6
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint Without Prejudice Pursuant
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 18th day of January 2018.
9
__________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ORDER - 4
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?