Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00596/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00596-4/pdf.json

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE F. TIBBETTS and 

TABERLYN TIBBETTS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KELLER MORTGAGE, LLC, dba 

KELLER MORTGAGE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-00596-JAM-CKD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

NATIONSTAR’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s 

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against Nationstar for 

defamation and injunctive relief. See Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), 

ECF No. 34. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Nationstar’s 

motion. Opp’n., ECF No. 40. Plaintiffs argue Nationstar has 

filed answers against Plaintiffs’ previous complaints containing 

“the exact same language” as the currently active third amended 

complaint (“TAC”). Id. Plaintiffs contend the TAC does not

revive Nationstar’s right to file a post-answer Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion. Id. Nationstar did not file a reply. For the reasons 

set forth below, the Court denies Nationstar’s motion.1

1This motion is determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

Case 2:23-cv-00596-JAM-CKD Document 45 Filed 02/20/24 Page 1 of 3
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

I. OPINION

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b), a 

motion asserting a Rule 12(b)(6) defense must be brought prior to 

filing a responsive pleading. Although an amended complaint 

generally “wipes out” a prior complaint, district courts in this 

circuit have followed a general rule that an amended complaint 

does not allow defendants to raise Rule 12(b) defenses that they 

could have raised against a previous complaint. Power Probe 

Grp., Inc. v. Innova Elecs. Corp., No. 2:21-cv-00332-GMN-EJY, 

2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204329, at *5 (D. Nev. Apr. 27, 2023); Best 

Fresh LLC v. Vantaggio Farming Corp., No. 3:21-cv-00131-BEN-WVG, 

2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162581, at *31 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022); 

Townsend Farms v. Goknur Gida Madderleri Enerji Imalat Ithalat 

Ihracat Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S., No. SA CV 15-0837-DOC (JCGx), 

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195933, at *17 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016); 

Brooks v. Harlon Rip Caswell, No. 3:14-cv-01232-AC, 2016 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 26832, at *8 (D. Or. Mar. 2, 2016). If a defendant 

filed an answer to a previous complaint, only new allegations and 

arguments in the amended complaint will create a basis for a Rule 

12(b) motion. Best Fresh LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162581, at 

*34. For Rule 12(b)(6) motions, “[a]llowing a post-answer motion 

to dismiss on an amended complaint where the amendment merely 

substantiates existing claims would render the Rule 12(b) 

restriction on post-answer motions meaningless.” Brooks, 2016 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26832, at *8. 

Here, the TAC alleges the same causes of action as 

Plaintiffs’ previous complaints for defamation and injunctive 

relief. Compare TAC at 13-15, with Compl. at 11-12, Exh. 1 to 

Case 2:23-cv-00596-JAM-CKD Document 45 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 20-21, First Amended Compl. 

(“FAC”) at 12-13, ECF No. 8, and Second Amended Compl. (“SAC”) at 

12-14, ECF No. 17. There are no new allegations or arguments

against Nationstar concerning these two causes of actions. 

Nationstar filed answers to Plaintiffs’ first and second amended 

complaints, arguing general denials against the two causes of 

actions. Nationstar Answer to FAC at 9-10, ECF No. 10; 

Nationstar Answer to SAC at 8-9, ECF No. 20. Because Nationstar 

filed answers against Plaintiffs’ prior complaints and the TAC 

does not add any new matter that creates a new basis for a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion, Nationstar’s motion cannot be considered by this 

Court. The Motion is denied. 

II. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant 

Nationstar’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2024

Case 2:23-cv-00596-JAM-CKD Document 45 Filed 02/20/24 Page 3 of 3