Pirkey v. Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories Inc

FILED IN THE 3 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Oct 23, 2020 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SARINA PIRKEY, an individual, 10 Plaintiff, No. 2:20-CV-00211-SAB 11 v. SCHWEITZER ENGINEERING ORDER GRANTING MOTION LABORATORIES, INC., a Washington FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO Corporation; SCHWEITZER AMEND THE COMPLAINT; ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, INC. DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN; JOSEPH NESTEGARD, individually and as Plan Administrator; JANE DOE NESTEGARD; MICHELE BEEHLER, individually and as Plan Administrator; STACEY DOTY, individually and as Plan Administrator; JOHN DOE DOTY; CONNEE ROVEGNO, individually and as Plan Administrator; and JOHN/JANE DOES 1- 99; 27 Defendants.

1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the Complaint, ECF No. 15. The Motion was considered without oral argument.

3 Defendants have not timely objected to the request and are assumed to consent to Plaintiff’s motion. See LCivR 7(e). Pursuant to the liberal standard of Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 15(a)(2), the Court finds good cause to grant the motion.

6 The Court also notes that Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff’s Status as an Alternate Payee, ECF No. 14, and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16. However, both motions seek a judgment on the basis of the original complaint, ECF No. 1, and Defendants’ original answer, ECF No. 5, rather than on the basis of the First Amended Complaint and Defendants’ soon-to-be-filed answer. Upon filing, an amended complaint supersedes a previously filed complaint in its entirety and renders it null.

13 Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Rocha v. Caliber Collision Transp. Services, LLC, No. CV 17-06876-AB (JPRx), 2017 WL 8948066, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) (dismissing motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot based on the plaintiff’s attempt to file an amended complaint). In addition, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is premature, as those motions may not be filed until after the pleadings are closed.

19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Because the First Amended Complaint is now the operative complaint in this case, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment are moot. Those motions are therefore denied.

23 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 24 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED.

25 Plaintiff is granted leave to file her First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 15-1, along with accompanying exhibits, ECF Nos. 15-2–15-9.

27 2. Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days after the filing of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint to file any response thereto.

1 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's Status as 2||an Alternate Payee, ECF No. 14, is denied as moot and without prejudice.

Plaintiff may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings if she so desires on the basis of the First Amended Complaint.

5 4. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16, is denied as moot and without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgment if she so desires on the basis of the First Amended Complaint.

8 5. The parties’ Stipulated Motion to Continue Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Relief from Briefing Deadlines, ECF No. 20, is denied as moot.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter Order, provide copies to counsel, and docket Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, located at ECF No. 15-1, and related exhibits, located at ECF Nos. 15-2-15-9.

15 DATED this 23rd day of October 2020.

18 □ Sfruheyld See rar Stanley A. Bastian 21 Chief United States District Judge 22) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND OANA ATR ORDA ATATIAATC ACRIDRNT #4