Morningstar v. Amazon.com Services LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE AKECHETA MORNINGSTAR, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-628-JNW Plaintiff, ORDER v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on several pending motions filed by the parties. Having considered the motions, the record, and applicable law, the Court addresses the pending motions as follows: 1. Motions to amend. Plaintiff Akecheta Morningstar seeks leave to amend his complaint twice. Dkt. Nos. 19, 27. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Thus, Morningstar’s “Motion for 2nd Leave to Amend Complaint” is GRANTED. Morningstar’s first Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT given his subsequent motion. Dkt.

No. 19. Morningstar must file his Second Amended Complaint within 1 FOURTEEN (14) days of this order and serve all parties of record. See 2 LCR 15(a).

3 2. Motions to dismiss. An amended complaint supersedes the original 4 complaint and renders it without legal effect, so courts routinely deny 5 motions to dismiss superseded complaints as moot. Lacey v. Maricopa 6 Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012); Dahlstrom v. Life Care Centers of 7 Am., Inc., Case No. 2:21-CV-01465-JHC, 2022 WL 7631419, at *1 (W.D.

8 Wash. Oct. 13, 2022). Thus, the Court DENIES Defendant Amazon.com 9 Services, LLC’s motions to dismiss as MOOT given Morningstar’s 10 forthcoming second amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 12, 24. Amazon may 11 file a motion to dismiss Morningstar’s operative complaint once it is filed.

12 3. Sanctions motion. The Court construes Morningstar’s Motion to Moot 13 and Remove from the Record Document, Dkt. No. 23, as a motion to 14 withdraw his pending motion for sanctions under LCR 7(l), Dkt. No. 17, 15 which governs the withdrawing and renoting of pending motions. The 16 motion is GRANTED IN PART. Dkt. No. 23. Morningstar may withdraw 17 the sanctions motion and he may refile it later if he chooses, but the Court 18 will not maintain the motion pending on the docket as requested.

19 4. Summary judgment motion. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 20 is DENIED without prejudice. Dkt. No. 21. The motion seeks judgment on 21 claims for fraud, breach of contract, copyright infringement, and unjust 22 enrichment. However, at the time of filing, the operative First Amended 23 Complaint included only due process violations and criminal racketeering 1 claims. See Dkt. 19-1 at 4. Parties cannot assert unpled theories at 9 summary judgment. Redding v. Griffith, Case No. C18-1536 BJR-BAT, 3 2020 WL 38959138, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 10, 2020). The Court notes that 4 the Second Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, 5 does not appear to allege all of the claims for which Morningstar seeks G summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 27-1 at 4. Any future summary 7 judgment motion must address properly pled claims.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated this 15th day of September, 2025.

12 Z g L“e— 13 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge