Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00307/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00307-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHUCK BELLONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GADABOUT TOURS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.19-cv-00307-VKD 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Following the stipulated dismissal of defendant Roaring Camp, Inc. pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), plaintiff Chuck Bellone served the first amended complaint and 

summons on defendants Gadabout Tours, Inc., Lois Anderson, and Mark Anderson (collectively, 

“the Gadabout defendants”). Dkt. Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22. The Gadabout defendants moved to 

dismiss the first amended complaint on September 4, 2019. Dkt. No. 25. On September 9, 2019, 

plaintiff Chuck Bellone filed a second amended complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 

15(a)(1)(B). Dkt. No. 29.

A plaintiff may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of service of 

a motion under Rule 12(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).1 An amended pleading generally supersedes an 

original pleading. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.3d 1542, 1546 

(9th Cir. 1989). Because the Gadabout defendants were not named as defendants until the first 

amended complaint, and they responded to that pleading by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6), Mr. Bellone’s second amended complaint appears to have been filed as a matter of 

right within the time to amend permitted under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). See Boyd v. Santa Cruz Cty., 

 

1 A Rule 12 motion is not a “responsive pleading.” See CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Werner 

Enters., Inc., 479 F.3d 1099, 1104 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007).

Case 5:19-cv-00307-VKD Document 30 Filed 09/10/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No. 15-cv-00405-BLF, 2015 WL 3465837, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2015) (citing Williams v. Bd. 

of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007)).

Accordingly, the Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 25) as moot, and 

VACATES the hearing scheduled for October 15, 2019. Defendants’ deadline to respond to the 

second amended complaint is September 24, 2019. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00307-VKD Document 30 Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 2