Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01089/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01089-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Crystal Cruises, Inc.
Defendant
Dorene Giacopini
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORENE GIACOPINI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CRYSTAL CRUISES, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-1089 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND AS A MATTER OF

RIGHT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS

AS MOOT; VACATING HEARINGS

(Docket Nos. 23, 26)

Before the Court are the following motions: (1) defendant Crystal Cruises, Inc.’s

(“Crystal”) motion for partial summary judgment and motion to dismiss, filed October 24,

2005; and (2) plaintiff Dorene Giacopini’s motion, filed November 11, 2005, to amend her

complaint as a matter of right or, in the alternative, for leave to file a First Amended

Complaint. 

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to “amend the

party’s pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served[.]”

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Although Crystal has filed a prior motion to dismiss, in addition

to the instant motion for partial summary judgment and motion to dismiss, it has never filed

an answer to plaintiff’s complaint. Motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment

are not “responsive pleadings” within the meaning of Rule 15(a). See Crum v. Circus

Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Kirk v. United

Case 3:04-cv-01089-MMC Document 30 Filed 11/17/05 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

States, 232 F.2d 763, 770 (9th Cir. 1956). Accordingly, as no responsive pleading has

been served, plaintiff is entitled to file her amended complaint as a matter of right.

Plaintiff, in her First Amended Complaint, makes numerous changes to the claims

alleged in the instant action, including deleting her cause of action for violation of the

Americans With Disabilities Act, limiting the scope of her state law claims for violation of

California Civil Code §§ 51 and 54 and California Business and Professions Code § 17200

to occurrences in California, deleting all requests for injunctive relief, adding a request for

restitution to her § 17200 claim, adding new causes of action for fraudulent

misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and negligent and intentional

infliction of emotional distress, and alleging federal jurisdiction now exists over the

amended action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. In light of the significant changes to the

scope of the instant action, the Court finds Crystal’s motion for partial summary judgment

and motion to dismiss is moot.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above,

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint as a matter of right is hereby

GRANTED, and the December 16, 2005 hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED. 

Plaintiff shall file her First Amended Complaint forthwith.

2. Crystal’s motion for partial summary judgment and motion to dismiss is hereby

DENIED as moot, and the December 2, 2005 hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED. 

Crystal may, of course, file a new motion for summary judgment or a new motion to dismiss

addressing the causes of action asserted in the First Amended Complaint.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 23 and 26.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01089-MMC Document 30 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 2