Gastelum v. Town Center Village II LLC

1 3:25-cv-00745-JAH-LR
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
FERNANDO GASTELUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN CENTER VILLAGE II, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00745-JAH-LR
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS
[ECF NOS. 5, 6]
Pending before the Court is Defendant Town Center Village II, LLC (“Defendant”)
Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss (“Motions”). ECF Nos. 5, 6. Plaintiff Fernando
Gastelum (“Plaintiff”) opposed the Motions. ECF No. 12.
Relevant here, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on June 16, 2025,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows a party to amend
their pleading “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 Days after service of a
motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” ECF No. 10. Defendant filed
responses to Plaintiff’s amended complaint on June 30, 2025. ECF Nos. 13, 14.
Given the amended complaint is now operative, the Motions filed in response to the
original complaint1 are now moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002,
1 The record shows that Defendant filed its Motions responding to the original complaint,
ECF No. 1, on June 5, 2025, which is 36 days after service of process. See ECF Nos. 4-6.
Given that there is no record of the parties waiving service by filing a Rule 4(d) waiver
Case 3:25-cv-00745-JAH-LR Document 20 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2 3:25-cv-00745-JAH-LR
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
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
citations and quotations omitted).
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Defendant’s Motions as moot. 	The
Court will issue a ruling on Defendant’s pending motions in due course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 10, 2026
_____________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
form with this Court (which would have given them 60 days to respond to the original
complaint), the Court notes that Defendants’ Motions were filed past the 21-day filing
deadline under Rule 12(a)(1).
Case 3:25-cv-00745-JAH-LR Document 20 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2