Wyers Products Group v. Cequent Performance Products, Inc.
ORDER denying as moot 61 Motion to Dismiss. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/1/2014.(klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02640-REB
(consolidated with Civil Action No. 13-cv-02976-REB-KMT)
WYERS PRODUCTS GROUP, a Colorado corporation, and
PHILIP W. WYERS,
CEQUENT PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS,
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS
The matter before me is defendant Cequent’s Renewed Motion To Partially
Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) [#61],1 filed September 24, 2013. After the motion was
filed, plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for Leave To File a Second Amended
Complaint [#128], filed March 21, 2014. The magistrate judge subsequently granted
that motion. (See Minute Order [#132], filed March 21, 2014.)
The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the
superseded complaint.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
“[#61]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
1793795 at *1 (D. Colo. June 19, 2007). Therefore, the currently pending motion to
dismiss will be denied without prejudice.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendant Cequent’s Renewed Motion To
Partially Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) [#61], filed September 24, 2013, is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
Dated April 1, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
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?