Heit et al v. Livingston et al, No. 2:2023cv00507 - Document 17 (D. Idaho 2024)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. 5 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Senior Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (hs)

Download PDF
Heit et al v. Livingston et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO WARREN HEIT AND DEB HEIT, Case No. 2:23-cv-00507-BLW Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. SCOTT LIVINGSTON AND SHARI LIVINGSTON, Defendants. Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants, Scott Livingston and Shari Livingston, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Dkt. 5. The motion was filed on December 19, 2023. The Plaintiffs, Warren Heit and Deb Heit, filed an Opposition to the motion and a First Amended Complaint sixteen days after the motion to dismiss was filed. First Am. Compl., Dkt. 8; Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. 9. The Defendants did not file a reply to the Plaintiff’s Opposition, but moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Dkt. 10. As a preliminary matter, the Plaintiff’s amended complaint was timely filed within 21 days after the service of the Defendants’ 12(b) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). The Defendants do not argue otherwise. See generally Def.’s Mot., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com Dkt. 10. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were permitted to amend their complaint as a matter of course without the consent or leave of any other entity. See Rule 15(a)(1) (a party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course within the specified time periods). “An amended complaint ‘supersedes the original complaint’” thereby becoming the operative pleading. CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich, 16 F.4th 1266 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. linkLine Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009)). As the Plaintiffs argue in their first Opposition (Dkt. 9), the Defendants’ first motion to dismiss was rendered moot by the filing of the amended complaint. See A.I.I.L. v. Sessions, 2020 WL 13865454, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2020) (pending motion to dismiss complaint became moot once amended complaint superseded original pleading). The Defendants are free to file a successive motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Doe #35 v. Labrador, 2023 WL 4269679, at *11 (D. Idaho June 29, 2023) (a defendant may file a successive motion to dismiss an amended complaint because an amended complaint supersedes the original). In this case, the Defendants have already done so. Def.’s Mot., Dkt. 10. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. 5) is DENIED as moot. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 DATED: March 28, 2024 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.