Slattery v. City of Oceanside et al

1
26-CV-3479 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL ROBERT SLATTERY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF OCEANSIDE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 26-CV-3479 JLS (AHG)
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS AS MOOT AND
VACATING HEARING
(ECF Nos. 9, 11)
Presently before the Court are Defendants’ respective Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint (ECF Nos. 9, 11). Rule 15(a)(1)(B) allows a plaintiff to amend their complaint
as a right within twenty-one days after the service of a Rule 12 motion. Ramirez v. County
of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 	Here, Defendants each served
their respective Motions on September 23, 2026. Plaintiff exercised his right to amend by
filing an Amended Complaint on October 5, 2026, within the twenty-one-day window.
ECF No. 15. 	Because an amended complaint supersedes the original, and Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss targeted the Original Complaint, those Motions are DENIED AS
MOOT. See Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. The hearing scheduled for October 22, 2026, is
thus VACATED.
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-03479-JLS-AHG Document 18 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
26-CV-3479 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants SHALL answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
in accordance with applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-03479-JLS-AHG Document 18 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2