Kennedy et al v. McCormick et al
Filing
53
ORDER denying as moot 17 Defendants', Robert Barber, D.V.M. and Lawrence Wexler, D.V.M., Motion To Dismiss; denying as moot 18 Defendant Michael J. McCormick's Motion To Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/26/12. (kfinn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 12-cv-00561-REB-MEH
BEVERLY KENNEDY, an individual resident of the State of Colorado, and
KENNEDY FARMS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL McCORMICK, an individual resident of the State of Texas doing business as
MTM Farm,
ROBERT BARBER, D.V.M., an individual resident of the State of Florida doing business
as Laurel Equine Center, and
LAWRENCE WEXLER, D.V.M., an individual resident of the State of Florida,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) Defendants’, Robert Barber, D.V.M. and
Lawrence Wexler, D.V.M., Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)
[#17],1 filed April 18, 2012; and (2) Defendant Michael J. McCormick’s Motion To
Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum of Law [#18], filed April 19, 2012. After the
motions were filed and briefed, plaintiffs submitted their Unopposed Motion To Amend
Complaint and Jury Demand [#46], filed October 9, 2012. The magistrate judge
granted that motion (see Minute Order [#48], filed October 9, 2012), and the Amended
Complaint and Jury Demand [#49] was filed that same day.
1
“[#17]” 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.
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superceded complaint.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). Moreover, defendants now have filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint (see Defendants’, Robert Barber, D.V.M. and
Lawrence Wexler, D.V.M., Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) [#50], filed October 23, 2012; Defendant Michael J.
McCormick’s Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint [#51], filed October 23, 2012),
and informed the court that they believe the prior motions to be moot. I therefore will
deny those prior motions without prejudice on that basis.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Defendants’, Robert Barber, D.V.M. and Lawrence Wexler, D.V.M.,
Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) [#17], filed April 18, 2012, is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot; and
2. That Defendant Michael J. McCormick’s Motion To Dismiss and
Supporting Memorandum of Law [#18], filed April 19, 2012, is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as moot.
Dated October 26, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
2
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?