Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01519/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01519-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ESTATE OF CAROL KLIGGE, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FIDELITY MORTGAGE OF )

CALIFORNIA, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CIV F 05-1519 AWI DLB

ORDER ON STIPULATED

AGREEMENT TO AMEND

COMPLAINT AND RELATED

ORDERS

This is an action by the estate of Carol Kligge (“Plaintiff”) against a number of financial

institutions for the alleged failure of the institutions to adequately protect Carol Kligge’s

financial interests. None of the ten named defendants have filed an answer in this case. Between

December 5, 2005, and January 5, 2006, defendants Union Bank of California, N.A., American

Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Alliance Title Co., and Cal-Western Reconveyance

Corp. each filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Hearing on all the motions to dismiss, except the motion by Cal-Western

Reconveyance Corp., were scheduled for January 30, 2006. The motion to dismiss by CalWestern Reconveyance Corp. was scheduled for hearing on February 27, 2006. On January 20,

2006, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (the “FAC”). Four days later, on January 24,

2006, the parties filed a stipulated agreement titled “Stipulation to Allow Complaint to be

Amended and Motions Currently on Set to be Removed From the Calender” (the “stipulated

Case 1:05-cv-01519-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 01/26/06 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

agreement”). A separate proposed order was filed at the same time.

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

Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). “A motion to dismiss is not a ‘responsive

pleading’ within the meaning of Rule 15.” Id.; New v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co., 67 F.3d 716,

722 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Morrison v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus,

where a motion to dismiss is filed instead of an answer, Rule 15(a) allows a plaintiff to amend

the original complaint once as a matter of course without the need of obtaining leave of court. 

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a); Crum, 231 F.3d at 1130 n.3. An “amended complaint 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, the Defendants did not file answers, but instead filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions and

related motions to strike and for a more definite statement. As no prior amended complaints

have been filed, Plaintiff is entitled to file an amended complaint as a matter of course under

Rule 15(a), no stipulation of the parties is necessary. The amended complaint supersedes the

original complaint, and the original complaint is treated as non-existent. Defendants’ Rule

12(b)(6) motions, as well as any related motions to strike or for a more definite statement that

challenge Plaintiff’s original and now “non-existent” complaint, are therefore moot. 

The court notes the ambiguity that arises in the parties’ stipulated agreement in light of

the fact the stipulated agreement was filed four days after the FAC was filed. Does the stipulated

agreement refer to the FAC that had been previously filed or to a new amended complaint that is

to be filed at a later time? The stipulated agreement refers only to a “complaint” which the

parties agree may be amended. In the stipulated agreement the parties also agree Defendants will

have thirty days from the date of service of the amended complaint to respond.. The court

presumes at this point that the stipulated agreement refers to the FAC, which was filed four days

before the stipulated agreement. The court presumes that the stipulation was filed after the FAC

Case 1:05-cv-01519-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 01/26/06 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

because of the time necessary to collect the signatures of the counsel for each of the parties. The

court also presumes that no pleading other than the FAC filed on January 20, 2006, is authorized

by the stipulated agreement. If the stipulate agreement establishes any agreement other that the

agreement the court presumes, Plaintiff shall notify the court by filing a notice of intent to further

amend the complaint or similar notice in keeping with the parties’ actual agreement.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all motions to dismiss or to strike the

complaint that were filed prior to January 20, 2006, are hereby DENIED as moot. All hearing

dates currently calendered for consideration of motions that are now moot are hereby

VACATED. If the parties intend to proceed other than as reflected by the court”s understanding

as discussed above, Plaintiff shall file a notice of the parties’ intentions within seven (7) days of

the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

h2ehf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01519-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 3