Opinion ID: 715365
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adjudication of Schneider's Amended Counterclaim.

Text: 6 As a threshold issue, Schneider argues that the district court erred by granting AA & Co. summary judgment on his claim of negligent misrepresentation because AA & Co.'s original motion, filed in lieu of an answer, preceded his amended counterclaim. 7 While Schneider correctly states that he was entitled to amend his pleading as a matter of right under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 15(a) because AA & Co.'s summary judgment motion was not a responsive pleading, see, e.g., Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir.1984); Kirk v. United States, 232 F.2d 763, 770 (9th Cir.1956), his right to file an amended pleading is not relevant because it was never denied. Moreover, Schneider cites no authority--nor are we aware of any--to support his proposition that the mere filing of his amended counterclaim made it improper for the district court to hear AA & Co.'s pending motion for summary judgment. After Schneider amended his counterclaim with his additional claim for negligent misrepresentation, AA & Co. filed a surreply that expressly addressed his additional cause of action. Thus, we conclude that the district court properly reached the merits of both claims. 8