Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00303/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00303-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

MARIA BOLLINGER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO EITHER 

FILE A NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF 

MOTION TO DISMISS OR A NOTICE 

INFORMING COURT WHY MOTION IS NOT 

MOOT

(ECF Nos. 15, 20) 

FIVE DAY DEADLINE

On March 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1.) On June 3, 

2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint in its entirety. (ECF No. 

15.) The pending motion was referred to the undersigned for the preparation of findings and 

recommendations. (ECF No. 16.) The hearing is currently set for August 7, 2024. (ECF No. 17.) 

On June 18, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their 

opposition to July 3, 2024, and for Defendant to file its reply, if any, no later than July 22, 2024. 

(ECF Nos. 18, 19.) The stipulation did not mention the filing of a first amended complaint. On 

June 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 20.)

Under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course: ... 

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required ... 21 days after service of a 

motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f)....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “[A]n amended complaint 

Case 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB Document 21 Filed 06/27/24 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

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent” and as no longer 

performing any function in the case. Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 

(9th Cir. 2015); see also Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 

(9th Cir. 1989).

Here, the FAC was filed on the twenty-first day after Defendant filed its motion under 

Rule 12(b). The FAC has therefore become the operative complaint in this action. The original 

complaint filed on March 12, 2024—the subject of the pending motion to dismiss—is now nonexistent and performs no function in this case. See Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. Because 

Defendant’s 12(b) motion is attacking a non-existent complaint, the motion is ordinarily denied as 

moot. See id.; J.M. through McWilliams v. Tulare City Sch. Dist., No. 121CV1766AWIEPG, 

2022 WL 1489481, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2022) (denying motion to dismiss as moot after 

filing of amended complaint within twenty-one days); Ruffa v. S. California Edison Co., No. 

122CV01556ADABAM, 2023 WL 2143399, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023) (same); but see

Baday v. Kings Cnty., No. 120CV00644ADASKO, 2022 WL 10631010, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 

2022) (noting that in the “unusual situation...[w]hen the amended complaint is substantially 

identical to the original...a court can rule on the motion to dismiss with reference to the amended 

complaint” because “[i]t would be futile to dismiss [a defendant's] motion without prejudice, only 

to have [the defendant] refile another motion to dismiss with effectively the same arguments”) 

(citation omitted).

Because the filing of the first amended complaint on June 24, 2024 would ordinarily moot

the motion to dismiss, the Court shall require Defendant to file a notice informing the Court why 

its pending motion is not moot, or, alternatively, file a notice to withdraw its motion to dismiss. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB Document 21 Filed 06/27/24 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant shall file a notice informing the Court why the pending motion to 

dismiss (ECF No. 15) is not moot, or, alternatively, file a notice to withdraw its 

motion to dismiss within five (5) days of the date of this order; and

2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the Court’s recommendation to the 

District Judge that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) be denied as 

moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB Document 21 Filed 06/27/24 Page 3 of 3