Lepiane v. FNP, Inc. et al, No. 9:2020cv00163 - Document 25 (D. Mont. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER denying as moot 2 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 17 Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 2/17/2021. (ASG)

Download PDF
Lepiane v. FNP, Inc. et al Doc. 25 Case 9:20-cv-00163-DLC-KLD Document 25 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION DANIEL LEPIANE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated JOHN DOES 1-100, CV 20–163–M–DLC Plaintiffs, ORDER vs. FNP, INC., d/b/a FIRST NATIONAL PAWN; FNP of MONTANA, INC., d/b/a FIRST NATIONAL PAWN; FNP of MISSOULA, INC., d/b/a FIRST NATIONAL PAWN; FNPS, LLC; FIRST NATIONAL PROPERTIES, LLC, and DOES 1-5, Defendants. Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto’s Findings & Recommendation. (Doc. 17.) Judge DeSoto recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 2) as to Count I of Plaintiffs’ complaint, with leave to amend. (Doc. 17 at 14–15.) Importantly, following issuance of Judge DeSoto’s Findings & Recommendation (Doc. 17), Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 19.) The amended complaint supersedes Plaintiffs’ original complaint and moots Defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent it attacked the original complaint. Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). -1- Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:20-cv-00163-DLC-KLD Document 25 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2 Authority exists for the proposition that this Court may nonetheless treat Defendants’ motion to dismiss as targeting the amended complaint. Pettaway v. Nat’l Recovery Sols., LLC, 955 F.3d 299, 303–04 (2d Cir. 2020); see also Williams v. Southern Or. Credit Serv., Inc., 2016 WL 8261902, *1–2 (D. Or. 2016). Given the posture of this case, however, the Court declines to take this approach. Defendants are free to file another motion should they elect to do so. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Court declines to adopt Judge DeSoto’s Findings & Recommendation (Doc. 17) on the grounds that it is moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot. DATED this 17th day of February, 2021. -2-

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.