Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Claudia Gonzalez Mondragon and Alan Reyes, individually, are the named plaintiffs in this action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:22-CV-01259-JLT-FJS, against R. T. Farm Labor, Inc., a California corporation, and the individuals Ricardo Trevino Jr., Ricardo Gomez Trevino, and Harold Chuhlantseff. The body of the order also identifies Gustavo Guzman as a plaintiff. On July 20, 2026, Gonzalez Mondragon, Guzman, and Reyes filed a motion for default judgment, recorded at ECF No. 138. After the court granted leave to amend at ECF No. 148, a plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on September 29, 2026, at ECF No. 149.
The October 19, 2026 order, filed as Document 150 and attributed by the court's docket entry to Magistrate Judge Frank J. Singer, addresses what effect that later pleading has on the still-pending default-judgment motion. It also disposes of the scheduling conference then set for October 28, 2026, which the caption styles a status conference. The two-page order does not decide the merits of the amended claims, does not enter a default judgment, and does not finally deny the pending motion. Instead, it explains why the motion now appears moot, sets a process for withdrawing it by October 30, 2026, describes the findings and recommendation the court expects to issue if it is not withdrawn, and vacates the conference.
The Court’s Holding
The court grounded its analysis in settled Ninth Circuit law: an amended complaint supersedes the original, and the original is thereafter treated as nonexistent. It cited Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015), which quoted Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), and it noted that Ramirez was overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2012). Applying that supersession rule to the sequence of filings in this case, the court stated that the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment consequently appears to be moot. That statement is an assessment of the motion's current posture, not a final adjudication of the motion itself or of the underlying claims.
The operative directives follow from that assessment. The order directs consideration of whether to withdraw the motion for default judgment filed on July 20, 2026, and gives Plaintiffs through October 30, 2026, to withdraw it. Although one operative sentence uses the word 'Defendant,' the deadline and the warning that follow run expressly to Plaintiffs and their own motion. If Plaintiffs fail to withdraw the motion, the court states it will be forced to issue findings and a recommendation that the motion be denied as moot, which the assigned district judge will then adopt, modify, or decline following a fourteen-day objection period. Separately and finally, the court orders that the scheduling conference set for October 28, 2026, be vacated.
Key Takeaways
- A second amended complaint filed with leave led the magistrate judge to conclude that the pending default-judgment motion appears moot under Ninth Circuit supersession law.
- Plaintiffs have through October 30, 2026, to withdraw the July 20, 2026 motion for default judgment.
- The order does not itself deny the motion, enter default judgment, or resolve the merits; it directs withdrawal consideration and vacates the conference.
- If the motion is not withdrawn, the court expects to issue findings and a recommendation of denial as moot, subject to the assigned district judge's adopt, modify, or decline decision after a fourteen-day objection period.
- The October 28, 2026 scheduling conference is vacated.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how an amended pleading can displace the procedural footing of a motion aimed at the superseded complaint, leaving the movant to choose between withdrawing the motion and facing a likely mootness recommendation. It also preserves the respective roles of the magistrate judge and the assigned district judge: the magistrate judge does not finally deny the motion here, and any resulting findings and recommendation would be adopted, modified, or declined by the district judge only after a fourteen-day objection period.
Nothing in the order resolves the merits of the second amended complaint, enters judgment for either side, or announces a replacement conference date. The only concrete dispositions are the October 30, 2026 withdrawal deadline and the vacatur of the October 28, 2026 scheduling conference.