From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzalez v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Aug 21, 2024
3:24-cv-01116-JO-VET (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2024)

Opinion

3:24-cv-01116-JO-VET

08-21-2024

GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. JELD-WEN, INC., ET AL., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [DKT. 9]

HON. JINSOOK OHTA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this wage and hour class action, Plaintiff Gabriel Gonzalez alleges Defendant Jeld-Wen, Inc. failed to properly compensate Gonzalez and the other class members for their hours worked. [Dkt. 1-1 at 3]. On July 26, 2024, Jeld-Wen filed a motion to dismiss Gonzalez's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the “Motion”). [Dkt. 9]. Rather than oppose the Motion, Gonzalez filed a first amended complaint (the “FAC”) on August 14, 2024. [Dkt. 11]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Jeld-Wen's Motion as moot. [Dkt. 9].

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) (“Rule 15(a)(1)(B)”) allows a plaintiff to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within “21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)[.]” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1)(B). When a party properly avails itself of the opportunity to amend its pleading in response to a Rule 12(b) motion, courts deny the pending motions to dismiss as moot. See Rodriguez v. Zenni Optical, Inc., No. 23-cv-00821-H-KSC, 2023 WL 3612392, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2023) (citing Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015)).

Here, Gonzalez filed his FAC on August 14, 2024, which is 19 days after he was served with Jeld-Wen's Motion. [Dkt. 9; Dkt. 11]. Because Gonzalez filed his FAC within 21 days of being served with Jeld-Wen's Motion, Gonzalez properly amended his pleading under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). And, because Gonzalez properly amended his pleading in response to Jeld-Wen's Motion, the Court finds Jeld-Wen's Motion moot. See Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008 (explaining that an amended complaint supersedes its predecessor such that courts should find motions to dismiss directed at the former complaint moot).

Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Jeld-Wen's Motion as moot. [Dkt. 9].

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Gonzalez v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Aug 21, 2024
3:24-cv-01116-JO-VET (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2024)
Case details for

Gonzalez v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. JELD-WEN, INC., ET AL., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Aug 21, 2024

Citations

3:24-cv-01116-JO-VET (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2024)