Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06187/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06187-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CAGLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06187-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AS MOOT

Defendants HSBC Bank, USA and OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC (together, 

“Defendants”) moved to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Michael and Anna Cagle 

(together, “Plaintiffs”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Mot., Dkt. No. 

7. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion and indicated they would file an 

amended complaint. See Not. of Non-Opp’n, Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiffs did so on November 23, 

2016. See Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 11. 

A party may amend its pleading once “as a matter of course” within “21 days after service 

of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “[T]he general rule is that 

an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect . . . .” 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). As no prior amended 

complaints have been filed, Plaintiffs can file an amended complaint as a matter of course under 

Rule 15(a). Further, “[d]ismissal of the superseded original complaint would not alter the 

proceedings . . . as the parties would continue to litigate the merits of the claims contained in the 

now-operative First Amended Complaint.” Liberi v. Defend Our Freedoms Founds., Inc., 509 

Fed. App’x 595, 596 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissing as moot appeal of denial of an anti-SLAPP 

motion regarding a superseded complaint). 

Case 3:16-cv-06187-MEJ Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 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

Since the pending Motion is based on the original complaint, the Court hereby DENIES

the Motion as moot. Defendants shall file an answer or other responsive pleading within 21 days 

from the date of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06187-MEJ Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 2