Sergio Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino
806 F.3d 1002
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Ramirez sued the County of San Bernardino and others in state court alleging civil rights violations; the case was removed to federal court.
- Parties stipulated to dismiss certain defendants and agreed Ramirez could file an amended complaint within 20 days; the court shortened that to 10 days.
- Ramirez filed a First Amended Complaint within the deadline by stipulation/with defendants’ consent; defendants then moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6)) and for a more definite statement (Rule 12(e)).
- Ramirez failed to file an opposition to the motion; instead he attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint 21 days after the motion to dismiss, but the filing was rejected for lack of leave.
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss as unopposed under Local Rule 7‑12 and denied Ramirez’s motion for reconsideration, ruling he had exhausted his one amendment as of right and therefore needed leave to file the Second Amended Complaint.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed: it held Ramirez could timely file the Second Amended Complaint as a matter of course under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), which mooted the motion to dismiss; the local rule could not override the federal rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 15(a) required leave to file a Second Amended Complaint after a First Amended Complaint filed with opposing party’s consent | Ramirez: his Second Amended Complaint was filed "as of course" under Rule 15(a)(1) and was timely (21 days after motion to dismiss) | County: Ramirez had used his one amendment as of right or, alternatively, the First Amended Complaint was filed with leave so he needed court permission for another amendment | Ramirez was permitted to file the Second Amended Complaint as of course under Rule 15(a)(1); Rule 15(a) methods are alternative and not sequential |
| Effect of a timely-filed amended complaint on a pending motion to dismiss | Ramirez: the Second Amended Complaint supersedes the First Amended Complaint, rendering the motion moot | County: motion could be granted as unopposed under local rule because Ramirez didn’t oppose | The Second Amended Complaint superseded the First, so the motion to dismiss targeting the First was moot; the dismissal based on local rule was reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.) (an amended complaint supersedes the original)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir.) (original pleading ceases to perform any function after amendment)
- Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir.) (describing Rule 15(a) amendments "as of right")
- Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851 (9th Cir.) (amended pleadings and their effect on prior filings)
- Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1917) (plain‑meaning canon of interpretation)
- Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1992) (textualist approach to federal rules/statutes)
- Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1973) (federal rules prevail over conflicting local rules)