Francis et al v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

Filing 46

ORDER. Defendants Motion To Dismiss on Grounds of Forum Nonconveniens (sic) 14 filed 9/28/2010, is DENIED as moot. Motion for Summary Judgment 15 filed 9/28/2010, is DENIED without prejudice. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 12/14/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 10-cv-02105-REB-KLM HAROLD M. "MICKEY" FRANCIS, TOMMIE H. FRANCIS, and TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, as subrogee of the Petroleumplace, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., d/b/a Le Meridian Heliopolis, a Maryland corporation, et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT Blackburn, J. The matters before me are defendant's (1) Motion To Dismiss on Grounds of Forum Nonconveniens (sic) [#14]1 filed September 28, 2010; and (2) Motion for Summary Judgment [#15] filed September 28, 2010. After the motions were filed, plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs (sic) Joint Motion To Amend Complaint [#38] on November 15, 2010. Subsequently, the magistrate judge granted leave to file the amended complaint (Order Granting Leave To Amend [#42] filed December 8, 2010), which has now been docketed (Plaintiff's (sic) First Amended Complaint and Request for Jury Trial [#44] filed December 8, 2010). The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the superceded complaint. See Griggs v. Jornayvaz, 2009 WL 1464408 at *1 (D. Colo.
"[#14]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
1

May 22, 2009); United States ex rel. Babb v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2007 WL 1793795 at *1 (D. Colo. June 19, 2007). Therefore, the motion to dismiss is moot and will be denied without prejudice on that basis. Moreover, it appears that the amended complaint changes substantially the nature of this lawsuit, adding numerous additional parties in an effort to address, via the alter ego doctrine, arguments set forth in the motion for summary judgment. Under the circumstances, I find it would be more efficient to deny the motion for summary judgment without prejudice so that the issues may be resolved based on the claims as currently formulated. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That defendant's Motion To Dismiss on Grounds of Forum Nonconveniens (sic) [#14] filed September 28, 2010, is DENIED as moot; and 2. That Motion for Summary Judgment [#15] filed September 28, 2010, is DENIED without prejudice. Dated December 14, 2010, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

2