Barrientos-Sanabria v. Lake County, Colorado et al

Filing 22

ORDER re: 7 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Antonio Lobato, Edward Holte, Aaron (I) D'Mize, Anthonio (I) Lobato, Edward (I) Holte, Aaron D'Mize, Rod Fenske, is DENIED without prejudice as MOOT. by Judge William J. Martinez on 7/13/2011. (erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00838-WJM-KLM
OSVALDO BARRIENTOS-SANABRIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAKE COUNTY, COLORADO, a Municipality,
EDWARD HOLTE,
ROD FENSKE
ANTHONIO LOBATO, and
AARON D’MIZE
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7,
filed on May 31, 2011. On June 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, ECF No.
8, which is now the operative complaint in this case.
The filing of an amended complaint moots a previously-filed motion to dismiss.
See, e.g., Strich v. United States, No. 09-cv-01913-REB-KLM, 2010 WL 148269, at *1
(D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2010) (unpublished) (“The filing of an amended complaint moots a
motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”
(citations omitted)); AJB Props., Ltd. v. Zarda Bar-B-Q of Lenexa, LLC, No. 09-2021JWL, 2009 WL 1140185, at *1 (D. Kan. April 28, 2009) (unreported decision) (finding
that an amended complaint superseded the original complaint, and, accordingly,

denying "defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint . . . as moot”); Gotfredson
v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1172 (D. Colo. 2006) (stating that defendants’
motions to dismiss are “technically moot because they are directed at a pleading that is
no longer operative”).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is
DENIED without prejudice as MOOT.
Dated this 13th day of July, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2