Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Shopify removed this action to the Eastern District of California on October 9, 2026, after Nazarenko filed it in Sacramento County Superior Court on June 8, 2026. A September 3 state-court amendment corrected the defendant’s name from Shopify Commerce USA Inc. to Shopify (USA) Inc., and service followed on September 11. The complaint concerns an alleged online purchase of two folding memory foam sofa beds worth approximately $90. It asserts five causes of action and seeks a total of $500,000 in compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages.
Shopify moved to dismiss on October 16. Nazarenko, proceeding pro se, received permission to participate in electronic filing on October 19 and made several filings on October 21: a First Amended Complaint, an opposition to dismissal, motions to remand and change venue, and a motion to stay. He also moved to strike an exhibit to the removal notice. The October 26 order resolved the amended-pleading issue and three of those motions, but did not decide remand.
The Court’s Holding
The court allowed the First Amended Complaint as an amendment of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), filed within 21 days of Shopify’s Rule 12 motion. It explained that the earlier state-court form merely corrected a one-word corporate misnomer and that, even if the FAC were not the first amendment, leave would be freely given. Because an amended complaint supersedes the original and becomes the operative pleading, Shopify’s motion to dismiss was denied as moot. The discussion states that Shopify must respond within 14 days under Rule 15(a)(3), and the operative order directs a response to the FAC by November 4, 2026.
The motion to strike failed because Rule 12(f) addresses matter in pleadings, while Nazarenko sought to strike an entire 157-page removal exhibit over an alleged error on one page, despite acknowledging that his default request appeared at pages 154-56; the court also noted that such motions are generally disfavored. The venue motion failed under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a): his electronic-filing premise was factually wrong and would not justify transfer anyway, he originally chose Sacramento County, and Shopify did not consent. The stay motion offered no valid basis once he had electronic-filing access; the court refused a blanket extension but allowed future deadline-specific requests upon good cause. The remand motion was not decided: it is to be briefed under Local Rule 230, taken under submission without a hearing absent a future order setting one upon completion of briefing, and submitted without oral argument, with findings and recommendations to issue in due course.
Key Takeaways
- A timely amended complaint became the operative pleading and mooted Shopify’s pending motion to dismiss.
- Rule 12(f) was not a proper vehicle for removing a 157-page exhibit based on a claimed error on one page, and such motions are generally disfavored.
- Electronic-filing preferences did not establish that convenience or the interests of justice supported a venue transfer, especially where the plaintiff originally chose Sacramento County and the defendant did not consent.
- The court denied a blanket stay and extension while preserving the possibility of good-cause relief from particular deadlines.
- The remand motion was not decided on the merits; it remains subject to Local Rule 230 briefing, submission without oral argument upon completion of briefing absent a future order, and later findings and recommendations.
Why It Matters
The order separates resolved procedural disputes from the still-open question of whether the case belongs in federal court. It establishes the FAC as the pleading Shopify must answer and clears away the original dismissal motion without deciding the merits of Nazarenko’s claims.
It also gives concrete procedural guidance to a self-represented litigant: amendment rights, the limited function of motions to strike, the showing required for transfer, and the need for good cause tied to specific deadlines. The court’s discussion of electronic filing and district-wide delays explains its refusal of a general stay, not a ruling on remand or liability.