Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This case is pending in the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs are the Estate of Brion E. Spidle, acting through its successors-in-interest, and others. The defendant is Jerry Ourique. The order does not describe the underlying claims, so nothing here reflects what the plaintiffs allege. On October 5, 2026, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, docketed as ECF No. 15. On October 26, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, docketed as ECF No. 21, which the order says they filed as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone issued the short order on October 27, 2026. He relied on the settled Ninth Circuit rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original, which is thereafter treated as non-existent. The order cites Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015), quoting Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997). It also notes that Forsyth was overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2012). The order does not analyze the arguments in the motion to dismiss itself.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not decide whether the original complaint was sufficient, and it neither granted nor denied the motion to dismiss. Reasoning that the first amended complaint superseded the original, it said only that the motion appears to be moot. That is a tentative assessment, not a formal ruling. The court then directed the defendant to consider whether to withdraw the motion and gave him through November 3, 2026, to do so.
The order also states what follows if the defendant does nothing. If the motion is not withdrawn by the deadline, the court said it would issue findings and recommendations that the motion be denied as moot. Those findings and recommendations would go to the District Judge, who would rule after a fourteen-day objection period. The order is a case-management direction, not a final judgment, and it dismisses no claim. It does not address whether or how the defendant may respond to the amended complaint, and it grants or denies no leave on that subject.
Key Takeaways
- A first amended complaint filed as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) supersedes the original complaint, and under Ninth Circuit authority the original is treated as non-existent afterward.
- A motion to dismiss aimed at a superseded complaint is ordinarily moot, but here the magistrate judge expressed that view only tentatively and invited withdrawal rather than ruling.
- The order is a directive to the defendant, not a decision on the merits, and no claim has been dismissed.
- The defendant had until November 3, 2026, to withdraw the motion. Otherwise the magistrate judge said he would issue findings and recommendations to deny it as moot, subject to a fourteen-day objection period before the District Judge rules.
- The order is unreported and applies existing Ninth Circuit authority, so it carries no precedential weight of its own.
Why It Matters
The order shows a routine way federal courts in the Eastern District handle a motion to dismiss that an amendment has overtaken. Instead of requiring briefing and a decision on a motion aimed at a pleading with no continuing legal effect, the court first invites the movant to withdraw it. That saves the parties and the court needless work. The sequence also matters procedurally: a magistrate judge who would recommend denial as moot must proceed by findings and recommendations, which the District Judge reviews after the objection period.
Because this is an unpublished, case-specific order with brief reasoning, it adds nothing beyond the authorities it cites. Several questions remain open on this record. The order does not show whether the defendant withdrew the motion, whether he will respond to the first amended complaint or move against it, or what that pleading alleges. Those issues are for later proceedings.