Bolerjack v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.

Filing 89

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot defendant's 77 Motion to Dismiss. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/5/13.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02918-PAB-BNB
(Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 13-cv-02607-PAB and 13-cv-02866-PAB)
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02918-PAB-BNB
SONYA BOLERJACK,
Plaintiff,
v.
PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC.,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02607-PAB-BNB
GARETT KOEHLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC.
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02866-PAB-BNB
LISA LEO,
Plaintiff,
v.
PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC.
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No.
77]. On November 4, 2013, plaintiff Sonya Bolerjack filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint [Docket No. 88] pursuant to the Order [Docket No. 87] granting

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Modify Scheduling Order to File First Amended Complaint
[Docket No. 66]. Thus, the First Amended Class Action Complaint became the
operative pleading in this action, and the Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 77] is directed
to an inoperative, superseded pleading. See, e.g., Gilles v. United States, 906 F.2d
1386, 1389 (10th Cir. 1990) (“a pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a)
supersedes the pleading it modifies”) (internal quotation marks omitted). As such, the
motion to dismiss is moot. It is
ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 77] is DENIED as
moot.
DATED November 5, 2013.

2