Matthew Wrightman v. Aramark Campus LLC, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE MATTHEW WRIGHTMAN, CASE NO. C25-2073-KKE Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION v. TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ARAMARK CAMPUS LLC, et al., Defendant(s).

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Matthew Wrightman’s motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants Aramark Campus LLC, Aramark Services, Inc., and Melinda Altamirano’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13). Dkt. No. 14.

On October 22, 2025, Defendants removed this action from King County Superior Court.

Dkt. No. 1. On October 29, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the case. Dkt. No. 13. On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 14. On November 14, 2025, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, and on November 18, Plaintiff filed his reply, as well as his first amended complaint. Dkt.

Nos. 15, 16, 18.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) “gives a plaintiff one opportunity to amend as of right.” Sanford v. Motts, 258 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2001). An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, leaving the latter without legal effect. Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, courts routinely deny as moot a motion to dismiss when it is followed by the filing of an amended complaint. See, e.g., Skistimas v. Hotworx Franchising LLC, 3:23-CV-05974-DGE, 2024 WL 3401023, at *1–2 (W.D. Wash. July 12, 2024) (denying as moot a motion to dismiss upon filing of amended complaint); Gonzalez v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 3:24-CV-01116-JO-VET, 2024 WL 3892939, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2024) (same).

6 In lieu of filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on November 18, 2025. Dkt. No. 18; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Because Plaintiff filed his amended complaint within 21 days of being served with Defendants’ responsive pleading, the Court DENIES as moot both Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) and Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14).

11 Dated this 19th day of November, 2025.

A Kymberly K. Evanson 14 United States District Judge