Skistimas v. Hotworx Franchising LLC, 3:23-cv-05974

Plaintiffs (Greg Skistimas et al.) filed a complaint against HOTWORX Franchising LLC and individual defendants regarding a contractual dispute.
Individual Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint; Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint adding new claims and allegations.
Defendants did not move to dismiss the amended complaint but instead replied to the amended complaint with arguments similar to their original motion.
The Court reviewed both the original and amended complaints for substantive similarity and the applicability of the initial motion to dismiss.
Both parties filed cross-motions regarding the enforceability and procedures related to a contractual dispute resolution clause, but their filings overlapped and duplicated arguments and requests for relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of motion to dismiss after amended complaint	Amended complaint introduces new claims/allegations	Motion to dismiss remains relevant; defenses unchanged	Motion to dismiss is denied as moot; new motion may be filed
Proper procedure for motion practice on dispute resolution	Arbitration clause is unconscionable and void	Agreement and dispute resolution clause should be enforced	Cross-motions are stricken; parties may file conforming motions
Citations to the record and authority	Not addressed directly	Provided incomplete or imprecise citations	Court stresses need for specific, accurate citations

Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2015) (an amended complaint supersedes the original, mooting prior motions to dismiss)
Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1997) (same rule regarding the effect of amended complaints)