Sardakowski v. Clements et al

Filing 61

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/19/12 GRANTING 48 Motion to Amend; DENYING as moot 17 Motion to Dismiss;and DENYING without prejudice 1 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [#48-1] for filing as of the date of this Minute Order.(nmmsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01326-KLM
JAMES SARDAKOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM CLEMENTS, in his individual capacity,
TRAVIS TRANI, in his individual capacity, and
KAVIN SNYDER, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order [Docket No. 1; Filed May 21, 2012], filed as part of Plaintiff’s original Complaint; on
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 17; Filed July 9, 2012]; and on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Docket No. 48; Filed October 25, 2012]
(the “Motion to Amend”). Defendants initially stated their opposition to the Motion to
Amend, but in their Response [#60] they withdraw their objections. Accordingly, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#48] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint [#48-1] for filing as of the date of this Minute Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [#1]
is DENIED without prejudice.1 AJB Props., Ltd. v. Zarda Bar-B-Q of Lenexa, LLC, No.
09-2021-JWL, 2009 WL 1140185, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that amended
complaint supersedes original complaint).

1

The Court construed Plaintiffs original Complaint [#1], which he filed as a pro se litigant
before obtaining counsel, as seeking a temporary restraining order, in part. The Amended
Complaint [#48-1] does not renew this request.

-1-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [#17] is DENIED as moot.
See, e.g., Strich v. United States, No. 09-cv-01913-REB-KLM, 2010 WL 14826, at *1 (D.
Colo. Jan. 11, 2010) (citations omitted) (“The filing of an amended complaint moots a
motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”);
Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1172 (D. Colo. 2006) (noting that
defendants’ motions to dismiss are “technically moot because they are directed at a
pleading that is no longer operative”).

Dated: November 19, 2012

-2-