Tolentino v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 21 Motion to amend his complaint; granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 18 Motion to reactivate this case and to dismiss Mr. Tolentino's complaint; denying as moot Plaintiff's 19 Motion for an extension to time. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

FRANCIS TOLENTINO,

CASE NO. C16-0451JLR

Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO AMEND AND RESOLVING
OTHER MOTIONS

U.S. CITIZENSHIP &
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
I.

INTRODUCTION

16
On June 28, 2016, the court entered an order granting the parties’ joint motion to
17
hold the case in abeyance pending a final administrative decision in this matter. (See
18
6/28/16 Order (Dkt. # 13).) The order also struck Defendants’ June 2, 2016, motion to
19
dismiss “without prejudice to refiling after the abeyance is lifted.” (Id. at 2.) At the
20
parties’ request, the court twice extended the abeyance in this matter. (See 10/4/16 Order
21
(Dkt. # 15); 12/2/16 Order (Dkt. # 17).)
22

ORDER - 1

1

Before the court are three motions: (1) Defendants’ motion to reactivate the case

2

and to dismiss Plaintiff Francis Tolentino’s complaint (MTD (Dkt. # 18)); (2) Mr.

3

Tolentino’s unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion

4

to dismiss (MFE (Dkt. # 19); see also Notice (Dkt. # 20) (stating that Defendants have no

5

objection to Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time)); and (3) Mr. Tolentino’s

6

unopposed motion to amend his complaint in lieu of responding to Defendants’ motion to

7

dismiss (MTA (Dkt. # 21)). The court has considered the motions, the parties’

8

submissions related to the motions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable

9

law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Mr. Tolentino’s motion to amend his

10

complaint, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion, and DENIES as

11

moot Mr. Tolentino’s motion for an extension of time.

12
13

II.

ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states, in relevant part, that “a party may

14

amend its pleading . . . with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,”

15

and that the court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16

15(a)(2). Because Defendants do not oppose Mr. Tolentino’s motion to amend his

17

complaint, the court grants the motion. The court further orders Mr. Tolentino to file his

18

amended complaint no later than May 15, 2017. (See Prop. Ord. (Dkt. # 21-1) at 2.)

19

Defendants shall file a response to Mr. Tolentino’s amended complaint in accordance

20

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

21
22

Once Mr. Tolentino files his amended complaint, it will supersede Mr. Tolentino’s
original complaint and become the operative complaint in this proceeding. See Lacey v.

ORDER - 2

1

Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (recognizing “the general

2

rule . . . that an amended complaint supercedes [sic] the original complaint and renders it

3

without legal effect”). Accordingly, the court grants in part and denies in part

4

Defendants’ motion to reactivate this proceeding and dismiss Mr. Tolentino’s complaint.

5

The courts grants the portion of Defendants’ motion seeking to reactivate the case and

6

lifts the abeyance. However, because Mr. Tolentino’s original complaint will no longer

7

have any legal effect after he files his amended complaint, the court denies as moot the

8

portion of Defendants’ motion seeking to dismiss the original complaint.

9
10

Finally, Mr. Tolentino’s motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’
motion to dismiss is also moot. Accordingly, the court also denies that motion.

11
12

III.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court GRANTS Mr. Tolentino’s motion to

13

amend his complaint (Dkt. # 21), GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’

14

motion to reactivate this case and to dismiss Mr. Tolentino’s complaint (Dkt. # 18), and

15

DENIES as moot Mr. Tolentino’s motion for an extension of time (Dkt. # 19).

16

Dated this 5th day of April, 2017.

17
18

A

19

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 3