Stavaski v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. et al
ORDER denying without prejudice as moot 55 defendants Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Fifth Claim for Relief. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/23/2009.(sah, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Action No. 09-cv-00077-REB-BNB MARK STAVASKI, Plaintiff, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., and DAVID PROFOZICH, Defendants. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIFTH AMENDED CLAIM FOR RELIEF Blackburn, J. The matter before me is defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Fifth Claim for Relief [#55] filed October 16, 2009. After the motion was filed, plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint, inter alia, to provide "a more definite statement of the claim." (See Plaintiff's Second Motion To Amend Complaint ¶7 at 4 [#60] filed November 5, 2009.) The magistrate judge granted the motion, and the second amended complaint has been accepted for filing. (See Order [#71] filed November 20, 2009.) The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the superseded complaint. See Griggs v. Jornayvaz, 2009 WL 1464408 at *1 (D. Colo. May 22, 2009); United States ex rel. Babb v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2007 WL 1793795 at *1 (D. Colo. June 19, 2007).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Fifth Claim for Relief [#55] filed October 16, 2009, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. Dated November 23, 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?