Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00532/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00532-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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 - 08CV532 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE E. LA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08CV532 WQH (WMc)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

vs. MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

ANDRA LEONARD ALLEN and

FOREVER DIAMONDS,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On March 21, 2008, Plaintiff Grace E. La filed the Complaint in this matter against Defendants

Andra Leonard Allen and Forever Diamonds. (Doc. # 1). On May 9, 2008, Defendants filed a motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of personal

jurisdiction. (Doc. # 5). On May 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 6).

DISCUSSION & ORDER

FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) provides in pertinent part that,

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter

 of course:

(A) before being served with a responsive pleading; or

(B) within 20 days after serving the pleading if a responsive pleading is not

 allowed and the action is not yet on the trial calendar.

In the context of FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(A), a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. See

Case 3:08-cv-00532-WQH-WMC Document 7 Filed 06/17/08 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 - 08CV532 WQH (WMc)

Shaver v. Operating Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust Fund, 332 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003);

Morrison v. Mahoney, 339 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005).

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter on March 21, 2008, and after that time no Defendant

filed a responsive pleading. In light of those facts, the Court finds that Plaintiff had the “absolute

right” to file a First Amended Complaint on May 30, 2008. Shaver, 332 F.3d at 1201; see also (Doc.

# 6). The Court concludes that Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss (Doc. # 5) before

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, and that the motion to dismiss is now moot in light of the

First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot and

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00532-WQH-WMC Document 7 Filed 06/17/08 Page 2 of 2