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motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”);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-
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?