O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 ALEXANDER STROSS, Case № 2:23-cv-04538-ODW (AGRx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 MOVE, INC. et al., DISMISS AS MOOT [13] 15 Defendants. 16 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Defendant Move, Inc. served Plaintiff Alexander Stross with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this case on August 1, 2023. (ECF 3 | No. 13.) On August 22, 2023, Stross filed a First Amended Complaint, twenty-one 4|| days after Move filed its responsive pleading. (ECF No. 17.) Federal Rule of Civil 5 || Procedure 15(a)(1) allows plaintiffs to file an amended complaint once as a matter of 6 || course within twenty-one days of service with a Rule 12(b) motion. Therefore, 7 || Stross’s amended complaint is proper. As the pending motion to dismiss was based 8 | on a complaint that is no longer operative, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion. 9 || See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino,

(9th Cir. 2015). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 August 23, 2023 ss 14 . wg Gd lliid 16 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28