Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01190/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

 Under Rule 15(a), “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any

time before a responsive pleading is served.” Defendant did not file an answer, and instead filed a

motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading” within the meaning of Rule 15,

accordingly Plaintiff did not need leave of court to amend his complaint once as a matter of right within

21 days of being served with the motion to dismiss. See Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 216 F.3d 764, 788 (9th Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 

- 1 - 11cv1190

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDISON CABALUNA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1190-MMA (WMc)

vs. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

WAL-MART STORES, INC., [Doc. No. 5]

Defendant.

On March 24, 2011, Plaintiff Edison Cabaluna commenced an action in the Superior Court of

the State of California, County of San Diego, alleging Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin and disability. See Doc. No. 1. On May

31, 2011, Defendant removed the action to this Court and thereafter filed a motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). See Doc. Nos.

1-5. On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint.1

 See Doc. No. 6. 

The complaint which Defendant moves to dismiss is no longer the operative pleading in this

action. An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114

Case 3:11-cv-01190-WMC Document 7 Filed 06/24/11 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 - 11cv1190

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Once a plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. 

Because Defendant’s pending motion seeks dismissal of a complaint that is no longer the operative

pleading in this case, the motion has become moot. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s motion to

dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 24, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01190-WMC Document 7 Filed 06/24/11 Page 2 of 2