Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00370/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00370-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY LEE LACOMBA, SR. & 

ROCHELLE LOUISE LACOMBA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EAGLE HOME LOANS AND 

INVESTMENT, LLC & DEL TORO 

LOAN SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-0370 KJM DB

ORDER

Plaintiffs commenced this action on February 27, 2023, by filing a complaint. (ECF No. 

1.) On April 19, 2023, a Clerk’s entry of default was entered as to defendant Del Toro Loan 

Services, Inc., pursuant to plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 16.) On July 17, 2023, plaintiffs filed a 

motion for default judgment against defendant Del Toro Loan Services, Inc., and noticed the 

motion for hearing before the undersigned on August 25, 2023, pursuant to Local Rule 

302(c)(19). (ECF Nos. 32 & 33.) 

However, on July 17, 2023 plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 30.) No 

default has been entered as to any defendant with respect to the amended complaint. And 

plaintiffs filing of an amended complaint rendered defendant’s default on the original complaint 

void. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“As a general rule, when a 

Case 2:23-cv-00370-DJC-DB Document 38 Filed 08/24/23 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

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the amended complaint supercedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.”). In this regard, “after amendment the original pleading 

no longer performs any function[.]” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

“Consequently, default judgment on the Amended Complaint would be improper because no 

default has been entered on the Amended Complaint.” ThermoLife Intern., LLC v. Sechel 

Holdings, Inc., No. CV 14-2291 PHX JAT, 2015 WL 1521779, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 3, 2015). 

Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, therefore, will be denied without prejudice to renewal as 

having been rendered moot. Nelson v. Nationwide Mortg. Corp., 659 F. Supp. 611, 615 (D. D.C. 

1987) (“In light of Nelson’s filing of an amended complaint, her motions for entry of default 

judgments against Nationwide, Tillette, and Butler must be denied as moot.”).

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ July 17, 2023 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 32) is denied without 

prejudice to renewal as having been rendered moot; and

2. The August 25, 2023 hearing of plaintiffs’ motion is vacated. 

Dated: August 23, 2023

DLB:6

DB\orders\orders.civil\lacomba0370.mdj.cont.ord

Case 2:23-cv-00370-DJC-DB Document 38 Filed 08/24/23 Page 2 of 2