Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01500/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jane Ritzenthaler; Richard Ritzenthaler, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Bank of America; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1500-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 1, 2011. (1.) Defendants filed a Motion

to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim

on December 12, 2011. (Doc. 22.) Rather than filing a response to the Motion to Dismiss,

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend on December 20, 2011. (Doc. 25.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) provides that a party may amend its pleading

once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of service or, if the pleading is one to

which a responsive pleading is required, within twenty-one days after service of the

responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), whichever is earlier. None of the

Defendants has filed an Answer. Defendants instead filed a motion under Rule 12(b).

Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend within twenty-one days after Defendants filed their

motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs therefore fall within the timing parameters for an

amendment as a matter of course.

Because Plaintiffs are entitled to an amendment as a matter of course pursuant to Rule

Case 2:11-cv-01500-JAT Document 27 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

15(a)(1)(B), the Court will grant their Motion to Amend. The Proposed Amended Complaint

filed at Docket 25 is now the operative complaint in this case. Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff,

656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011)(“[I]t is well established that an amended complaint

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”). Because

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is not directed at the new, operative complaint, the Court will

deny their Motion to Dismiss as moot without prejudice to re-filing a motion directed toward

the Amended Complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Doc. 25). The Amended

Complaint at Docket 25 is accepted as the operative complaint. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying as moot Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 22).

DATED this 18th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01500-JAT Document 27 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 2