Travis Switzer et al. v. City of Santa Maria et al.

O

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 TRAVIS SWITZER et al., Case № 2:25-cv-10716-ODW (AJRx) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 CITY OF SANTA MARIA et al., DISMISS AS MOOT [12] Defendants. 16 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 On December 8, 2025, Defendants City of Santa Maria and Bladley Dandridge filed their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule” or “Rules”) 12(b)(6) Motion to 3 || Dismiss in this case. (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. No. 12.) On December 22, 2025, Plaintiffs 4|| filed a First Amended Complaint, less than twenty-one days after Defendants filed 5 || their responsive pleading. (First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 15.) Rule 15(a)(1) allows 6 || Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one 7 || days of service with a Rule 12(b) motion. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is 8 proper. As Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss is based on a complaint that is no 9 longer operative, the Motion to Dismiss is…