Panzl v. United Airlines, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIMOTHY PANZL, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2046-WQH-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ERIC MENNEL, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff Timothy Panzl (“Plaintiff”) initiated this case by filing a Complaint against Defendants United Airlines, Inc. (“Defendant United”), Eric Mennel (“Defendant Mennel”), and Defendants Does 1 to 100 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, where it was assigned case number 25CU029301C. (ECF No. 1.) On August 8, 2025, Defendants United and Mennel removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Id. On August 15, 2025, Defendant United filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Defendant United’s Motion to Dismiss”). (ECF No. 4.) That same day, Defendant Mennel also filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Defendant Mennel’s Motion to Dismiss”). (ECF No. 5.)

1 On September 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against || Defendants. (ECF No. 8.)

3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “if [a] pleading is one to which a ||responsive pleading is required,” “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of ||course no later than... 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. ||P. 15(a)(1); see also Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) allows a Plaintiff to “amend once within twenty-one || days after service” of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6)). In this case, Plaintiff timely filed the || FAC within 21 days after service of the pending Motions to Dismiss. “Consequently, [ ] || Plaintiff's [FAC] supersede[s] the [Complaint], and the [Complaint] cease[s] to exist.”

11 || Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. Because Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss target 12 Plaintiff's superseded complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that both Defendant || United’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and Defendant Mennel’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF || No. 5) are denied as moot. See id. Dated: September 12, 2025 itt Z. A a 18 Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court