SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

On January 20, 2023, Defendant Stephen R. Dixon (“Defendant”) filed this motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative adjudication, against Plaintiff Joseph Glyzewski (“Plaintiff”) complaint as to the causes of action for negligence and premises liability.  

 

The motion for summary judgment/adjudication is directed at Plaintiff’s original complaint, which was filed October 20, 2021. On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative FAC.   

 

Both parties request the motion be continued in order for Plaintiff to conduct Defendant’s deposition, which had not proceeded due to Defendant’s illness.  

 

However, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint on November 9, 2023, wherein Plaintiff sought leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to allege additional allegations as to Defendant’s prior knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition, to set forth a third cause of action for intentional concealment, and to allege punitive damages. Plaintiff argues in her supplemental brief that the motion is moot. Defendant contends in its supplemental brief that its motion to Plaintiff’s original complaint is not moot because the issue of the third cause of action for concealment can be reserved for another day. However, Plaintiff’s FAC did not only add a cause of action, but also substantially amended the causes of action for negligence and premises liability by adding new factual allegations.  

 

A motion for summary judgment is shaped by the pleadings.  (See Laabs v. City of Victorville 163 Cal.App.4th 1242; Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.)  Further, an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints.  (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1130-31.)  The amended complaint furnishes the sole basis for the cause of action, and the original complaint ceases to have any effect either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment.  (Id.)  Since there is but one complaint in a civil action, the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.  (Id.)  Accordingly, once an amended complaint is filed, it is error to grant summary judgment or adjudication on a cause of action contained in a previous complaint.  (Id.) 

 

In this case, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication is to the complaint, but the operative complaint is the FAC, which superseded the complaint.   

 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is thus moot.