Rodriguez v. Momdoc

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Isabel Rodriguez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Momdoc,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-02232-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Isabel Rodriguez’s Motion for Leave to
Amend her Complaint (Doc. 16) and Defendant MomDoc’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13).
The Court has considered the pending motions and rules as follows.
I. Motion to Amend
On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Defendant, alleging that
Defendant denied her reasonable accommodations for her disabilities in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff obtained counsel and now seeks to
amend her Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (Doc. 16 at 2).
Instead of amending her Complaint within 21 days after service of Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss as permitted by Rule 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the Court’s leave
to file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) out of an “abundance of caution.” (Doc.
16 at 4).
Plaintiff has not yet amended the Complaint as a matter of course, and Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint would have been timely because her Motion to Amend was filed
Case 2:25-cv-02232-JAT Document 18 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
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
within 21 days of the Motion to Dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). The Court will treat
this as Plaintiff’s as-a-matter-of-course amendment, and direct Plaintiff to file her proposed
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16-1). Because Plaintiff is amending as a matter of course,
the Court will not consider the factors required for leave to amend.
II. Motion to Dismiss
Because the filing of an amended complaint replaces the previous complaint, the
Court finds it appropriate to deny the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Ramirez v.
County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established in
our circuit that an amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated
thereafter as non-existent.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Hal Roach
Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended
pleading supersedes the original.”).
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend as a matter of course (Doc. 16)
is granted. Plaintiff must file her First Amended Complaint within 5 days.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is denied
without prejudice. Defendant must answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended
Complaint within 14 days of when it is filed.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-02232-JAT Document 18 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 2