Bath v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al

Filing 20

MINUTE ORDER. 14 Plaintiff's Motion in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall file the Statement of Facts and Exhibits (Doc. Nos. 14-1 through 14-4) and docket as the document as an Amended Complaint and Exhibits. As "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss" (Doc. No. 11 , filed December 21, 2012) is directed at the now non-operative complaint, it is DENIED as moot. Defendants may answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Com plaint no later than March 5, 2013. It is unclear whether Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 13 , filed January 2, 2013) is directed at the now non-operative complaint or the Amended Complaint. Therefore, it is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile his Motion for Summary Judgment directed at the Amended Complaint. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 02/15/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 12–cv–03225–RBJ–KMT

BRIAN EDMOND BATH, Real Party in Interest under injury,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC,
PAUL J. GRINBERG, and
JOHN AND JANE DOES (1-100),
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
This matter is before the court on “Plaintiff’s Motion in Support of Motion for Leave to File
Amended Pleading” (Doc. No. 14, filed January 2, 2013). Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary, as,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), he could have filed his amended complaint as a matter of
course. Therefore, the Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED
as moot. The Clerk shall file the Statement of Facts and Exhibits (Doc. Nos. 14-1 through 14-4,
and docket as the document as an Amended Complaint and Exhibits.
As “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 11, filed December 21, 2012) is directed at the
now non-operative complaint, it is DENIED as moot. Defendants may answer or otherwise
respond to the Amended Complaint no later than March 5, 2013.
It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 13, filed January 2,
2013) is directed at the now non-operative complaint or the Amended Complaint. Therefore, it
is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile his Motion for Summary Judgment directed
at the Amended Complaint.
Dated: February 15, 2013