Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01135/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01135-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAOKO ITO, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

BRIGHTON/SHAW, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

)

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS )

____________________________________)

06 CV 01135 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ RULE

12(b)(6) AND RULE 12(e)

MOTIONS

This case comes before the Court on motions to dismiss a cross-claim or for more definite

statement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 12(e). Robert Carson (“Carson”) filed his cross-claim on

August 28, 2007, alleging, among other things, that Brighton Hills, LP and Shaw Academy, LP

(collectively, “Cross-defendants”) breached the fiduciary duty they owed to Carson. Crossdefendants filed the present motions to dismiss or for more definite statement on October 1,

2007. Carson did not file an opposition to the motions.

On December 3, 2007, Carson filed an amended cross-claim. Under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 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.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a); Crum v. Circus Circus

Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7(a), a cross-claim is considered a pleading. However, a “motion to dismiss is not a ‘responsive

pleading’ within the meaning of Rule 15.” Crum, 231 F.3d at 1130 n.3; New v. Armour

Case 1:06-cv-01135-AWI -DLB Document 95 Filed 12/10/07 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

 The Court notes that Carson’s amended cross-claim no longer names Shaw Academy, 1

LP as a party. The Court further notes that much like a third-party to an action, a party that has

been previously dismissed from an original action may not be brought in through a cross-claim

generally. However, the Court makes no ruling on this issue because it is not before the Court.

2

Pharmaceutical Co., 67 F.3d 716, 722 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Morrison v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d

1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005). Similarly, a motion for more definite statement is not considered a

“responsive pleading” under Rule 15. See United Energy Owners Committee, Inc. v. U.S.

Energy Management Systems, Inc., 837 F.2d 356, 358 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that “defendants

did not file a responsive pleading; instead, they filed motions to dismiss or for a more definite

statement”). 

Thus, where a motion to dismiss and/or a motion for more definite statement is filed

instead of an answer, Rule 15(a) allows a plaintiff to amend the original cross-claim once as a

matter of course without the need of obtaining leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a); Crum,

231 F.3d at 1130 n.3; Neifeld, 438 F.2d at 425 n.3. An amended pleading “supersedes the

original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d

1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Here, Cross-defendants did not file an answer, but instead filed motions to dismiss or for

a more definite statement. As no prior amended cross-claims have been filed, Carson was

entitled to file his amended cross-claim as a matter of course under Rule 15(a). The amended

cross-claim supersedes the original, and the original cross-claim is treated as non-existent. Since

Cross-defendants’ motions attack Carson’s original and now “non-existent” cross-claim, Crossdefendants’ motions are moot.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cross-defendants’ motions to dismiss or

for more definite statement are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01135-AWI -DLB Document 95 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 2