Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07471/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07471-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

STEVEN PRESCOTT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NESTLE USA, INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-07471-BLF 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS 

THE COMPLAINT

[ECF 10, 11]

Plaintiffs Linda Cheslow and Steven Prescott bring this putative class action against 

Defendant Nestle USA, Inc. (“Nestlé”) and ten Doe defendants. See ECF 1, 13. Before the Court 

is Nestlé’s motion to dismiss the Complaint, which Nestlé filed on December 4, 2019. See ECF 10, 

11. Instead of filing an opposition, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 22, 

2020. ECF 13. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), however, Plaintiffs’

deadline to amend its complaint as of right was December 26, 2019. Accordingly, Nestlé asks the 

Court to strike the FAC and grant its motion to dismiss as unopposed. ECF 14 (“Reply”) at 1. 

Plaintiffs object. ECF 21 at 1-2. They point out that the parties had stipulated to, inter alia, an 

extension of the deadline for Plaintiffs to “respond” to Nestlé’s motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs 

believe covers a response in the form of an amended complaint. Id. (quoting ECF 6, citing ECF

12). And indeed, the FAC does not appear to add new claims or parties, but rather to respond to the 

deficiencies argued in the motion to dismiss. 

In the interest of efficiency, and because Plaintiffs’ actions appear to have resulted from a 

lack of clarity regarding the scope of the parties’ stipulation, the Court accepts the FAC as the 

operative complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The motion to dismiss the 

original Complaint is therefore TERMINATED as moot. Defendants’ deadline to respond to the 

FAC is Friday, February 28, 2020. The parties are advised to be more precise in their future 

Case 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 22 Filed 02/14/20 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

stipulations. 

Having resolved the instant motion to dismiss, the motion hearing currently set for February 

27, 2020 is hereby VACATED. The Case Management Conference remains as set. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 22 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 2