Ammari v. Ammari (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 24, 2025)

Apparently this is indeed the law -- at least in California. Even though the defendant never answered the plaintiff's amended complaint, plaintiff still can't take their default, since the defendant nonetheless filed an answer to the original complaint and that answer denied some of the relevant material allegations. It's not required to file an answer to the amended complaint if you don't feel like it. Even though the original complaint "disappears" in large part, the answer to that original complaint nonetheless prevents the taking of a default.

News to me, but good to know. Solid knowledge.

I'm not entirely convinced this is a great rule. It messes up docket management by making it difficult to figure out if the pleadings are indeed closed. It also may make it more difficult to figure out which allegations are denied and which are admitted, especially if the amended complaint's paragraph numbers are different than those in the original complaint. Moreover, if the defendant hasn't even bothered to file an answer, do we really expect them to litigate the case going forward? Seems like there might well be a default in the future regardless, and the only thing this rule would accomplish in such cases would be delay.

Plus, for many trial judges, I suspect that the rule is easily circumvented. Nothing in the Court of Appeal's opinion prevents a trial judge from ordering the express filing of an answer to the amended complaint as a matter of docket management -- presumably with the penalty of entry of default if the order is disobeyed. So at least if the judge is on top of things, again, all that's accomplished is delay.

So I'm not really sure the rule makes practical sense.

But, okay. It's a rule. At least at present. So let's make sure we know (and follow) it.