Pirkey v. Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories Inc et al

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING 15 MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT; denying as moot 14 and without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's Status as an Alternate Payee; de nying as moot 16 and without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying as moot 20 Parties' Stipulated Motion to Continue Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Relief from Briefing Deadlines. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (AY, Case Administrator)

Download PDF
Case 2:20-cv-00211-SAB ECF No. 21 filed 10/23/20 PageID.211 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Oct 23, 2020 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 SARINA PIRKEY, an individual, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. No. 2:20-CV-00211-SAB 12 SCHWEITZER ENGINEERING ORDER GRANTING MOTION 13 LABORATORIES, INC., a Washington FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO 14 Corporation; SCHWEITZER AMEND THE COMPLAINT; 15 ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, INC. DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT 16 EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP 17 PLAN; JOSEPH NESTEGARD, 18 individually and as Plan Administrator; 19 JANE DOE NESTEGARD; MICHELE 20 BEEHLER, individually and as Plan 21 Administrator; STACEY DOTY, 22 individually and as Plan Administrator; 23 JOHN DOE DOTY; CONNEE 24 ROVEGNO, individually and as Plan 25 Administrator; and JOHN/JANE DOES 126 99; 27 Defendants. 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT * 1 Case 2:20-cv-00211-SAB 1 ECF No. 21 filed 10/23/20 PageID.212 Page 2 of 3 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the 2 Complaint, ECF No. 15. The Motion was considered without oral argument. 3 Defendants have not timely objected to the request and are assumed to consent to 4 Plaintiff’s motion. See LCivR 7(e). Pursuant to the liberal standard of Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 15(a)(2), the Court finds good cause to grant the motion. 6 The Court also notes that Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Judgment on the 7 Pleadings as to Plaintiff’s Status as an Alternate Payee, ECF No. 14, and a Motion 8 for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16. However, both motions seek a 9 judgment on the basis of the original complaint, ECF No. 1, and Defendants’ 10 original answer, ECF No. 5, rather than on the basis of the First Amended 11 Complaint and Defendants’ soon-to-be-filed answer. Upon filing, an amended 12 complaint supersedes a previously filed complaint in its entirety and renders it null. 13 Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 14 Rocha v. Caliber Collision Transp. Services, LLC, No. CV 17-06876-AB (JPRx), 15 2017 WL 8948066, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) (dismissing motion for 16 judgment on the pleadings as moot based on the plaintiff’s attempt to file an 17 amended complaint). In addition, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 18 is premature, as those motions may not be filed until after the pleadings are closed. 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Because the First Amended Complaint is now the operative 20 complaint in this case, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 21 Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment are moot. Those motions are 22 therefore denied. 23 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 24 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED. 25 Plaintiff is granted leave to file her First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 15-1, 26 along with accompanying exhibits, ECF Nos. 15-2–15-9. 27 2. Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days after the filing of Plaintiffs’ 28 First Amended Complaint to file any response thereto. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT * 2 Case 2:20-cv-00211-SAB 1 ECF No. 21 filed 10/23/20 PageID.213 Page 3 of 3 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff’s Status as 2 an Alternate Payee, ECF No. 14, is denied as moot and without prejudice. 3 Plaintiff may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings if she so desires on the 4 basis of the First Amended Complaint. 5 4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16, is denied 6 as moot and without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgment 7 if she so desires on the basis of the First Amended Complaint. 8 5. The parties’ Stipulated Motion to Continue Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial 9 Summary Judgment and for Relief from Briefing Deadlines, ECF No. 20, is denied 10 as moot. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 12 this Order, provide copies to counsel, and docket Plaintiff’s First Amended 13 Complaint, located at ECF No. 15-1, and related exhibits, located at ECF Nos. 14 15-2–15-9. 15 DATED this 23rd day of October 2020. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT * 3

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?