Scott Francis Iceberg v. The Kroger Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 SCOTT FRANCIS ICEBERG, CASE NO. C25-2342JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant.

15 Before the court are two motions to dismiss filed by Defendant The Kroger Co. (“Kroger”). (1st MTD (Dkt. # 16); 2d MTD (Dkt. # 21).) On December 15, 2025, Kroger moved to dismiss Plaintiff Scott Francis Iceberg’s original complaint. (1st MTD.)

18 Mr. Iceberg filed an amended complaint later that same day. (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 17)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (allowing a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)). On December 29, 2025, Kroger moved to dismiss Mr. Iceberg’s amended complaint. (2d MTD.) It did not, however, withdraw its first motion to dismiss. (See generally Dkt.)

1 In general, an amended complaint supersedes all previous complaints and renders them without legal effect. Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). As a result, courts routinely deem a motion to dismiss moot when the opposing party timely files an amended pleading instead of an opposition brief. See id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (allowing a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than 21 days after service of a motion to dismiss). Consistent with this practice, the court DEEMS Kroger’s first motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 16) moot and STRIKES the first motion to dismiss.

9 Dated this 30th day of December, 2025.

A 12 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge