Hoppe, II et al v. Percheron Associates, LLC et al

Filing 13

ORDER. Defendants Motion To Dismiss and Brief in Support 10 filed 1/4/2012, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/27/2012.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-03233-REB-CBS
ROGER HOPPE, II, a resident of Michigan,
Plaintiff,
v.
PERCHERON ASSOICATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
RONDA S. CANTER, in individual and resident of Massachusetts,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is defendants’ Motion To Dismiss and Brief in Support
[#10]1 filed January 4, 2012. After the motion was filed, plaintiff his Amended
Complaint for Damages [#11] filed January 25, 2012, as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(a)(1)(B). As noted by plaintiff in his Response to Motion To Dismiss [#12], filed
January 25, 2012, the Amended Complaint was filed in an attempt to address at least
some of the issues raised in the motion to dismiss.
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superceded complaint.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.
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 will be denied without

1

“[#10]” 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.

prejudice.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ Motion To Dismiss and Brief
in Support [#10] filed January 4, 2012, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
Dated January 27, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT: