Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00462/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00462-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Stiff
Plaintiff
Wilshire Credit Corporation
Defendant

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

1 On August 16, 2005, the Court issued an order to show cause,

requiring Plaintiff to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his claims for a period of six months,

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DAVID STIFF, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 05-00462 PCT MEA

) 

WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION, ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

)

 Defendant. )

_________________________________)

All of the parties have consented to the exercise of

magistrate judge jurisdiction over this case, including the

entry of final judgment. Before the Court is Defendant’s motion

[Docket No. 6] to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for an award of

attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(c). 

I. Background

On February 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint

asserting causes of action pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting

Act and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Docket No. 1.

Service of a summons and the complaint was executed on Defendant

on February 16, 2005. Docket No. 3.1

Case 3:05-cv-00462-MEA Document 18 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 4
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

which order to show cause was satisfied by Plaintiff on September 23, 2005.

See Docket No. 5.

2

 This section of the Fair Credit Reporting statutes

provides: 

Upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful

pleading, motion, or other paper filed in

connection with an action under this section was

filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment,

the court shall award to the prevailing party

attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the

work expended in responding to the pleading,

motion, or other paper.

15 U.S.C. § 1681n (c) (1998 & Supp. 2005).

-2-

 On September 19, 2005, Defendant responded to the

complaint with a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 6.

In that pleading Defendant also requested attorneys’ fees

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(c).2 Plaintiff responded to the

motion to dismiss by filing an amended complaint on October 3,

2005, see Docket No. 9, and by filing a response in opposition

to Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees. See Docket No. 10.

As of October 26, 2005, Defendant had not filed a pleading

objecting to the amended complaint or a reply to Plaintiff’s

response with regard to Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees.

II. Analysis

An amended complaint supersedes a previous complaint

rendering a motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. See,

e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1991);

Bullen v. DeBretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956) (“It

is hornbook law that an amended pleading supersedes the

Case 3:05-cv-00462-MEA Document 18 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 4
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-

original, the latter being treated thereafter as

non-existent.”); Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69, 76 (2d Cir.

2000); In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th

Cir. 2000) (“[A]n amended complaint supercedes an original

complaint and renders the original complaint without legal

effect.”); Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir. 2000);

Campbell v. Towse, 99 F.3d 820, 825 (7th Cir. 1996); National

City Mortg. Co. v. Navarro, 220 F.R.D. 102, 106 (D.D.C. 2004);

Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying

as moot the defendants’ motions to dismiss on the basis that the

amended complaint superseded the original complaint).

Defendant bears the burden of establishing that

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in bad faith or for the purpose

of harassment in the context of the motion for an award of

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Cf., e.g.,

Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 175 F.3d

1221, 1246 (10th Cir. 1999); Perry v. Stewart Title Co., 756

F.2d 1197, 1211 (5th Cir. 1985); Houghton v. New Jersey Mfrs.

Ins. Co., 615 F. Supp. 299, 309 (E.D. Pa. 1985), rev’d on other

grounds, 795 F.2d 1144 (3d Cir. 1986). The Court’s ultimate

finding regarding bad faith is a legal decision subject to clear

error review, however, the decision of whether to award

attorneys’ fees to Defendant is reviewed for an abuse of the

Court’s discretion. See Swanson v. Southern Or. Credit Serv.,

Inc., 869 F.2d 1222, 1229 (9th Cir. 1989); Horkey v. J.V.D.B. &

Assoc., Inc., 333 F.3d 769, 774 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 540

U.S. 985 (2003); Johnson v. Eaton, 80 F.3d 148, 153 (5th Cir.

Case 3:05-cv-00462-MEA Document 18 Filed 11/02/05 Page 3 of 4
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 -4-

1996).

Defendant has not established that the complaint was

filed in bad faith or for the purposes of harassment. Defendant

has established only that Defendant and Plaintiff engaged in a

dispute over Plaintiff’s financial obligation to Defendant, and

in a dispute regarding Defendant’s statutory obligation to

Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act. Therefore, the Court declines to

exercise its discretion to award attorneys’ fees to Defendant

with regard to the filing of Plaintiff’s initial complaint.

III Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, must be denied

as moot because Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint without

objection from Defendant. Additionally, Defendant has not

established that the complaint was filed for the purpose of bad

faith or harassment and, therefore, Defendant’s motion for an

award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(c) must

be denied.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant’s motion to

dismiss is denied as moot and Defendant’s motion for an award of

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(c) is denied per

the Court’s discretion.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2005.

Case 3:05-cv-00462-MEA Document 18 Filed 11/02/05 Page 4 of 4