Valles v. Gen-X Clothing No 63 et al

Filing 29

MINUTE ORDER: 12 Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied as moot. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 07/09/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00201-RM-KLM
HILLARY VALLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEN-X ECHO B, INC, d/b/a GENX and
MARTIN COLLAZO RANGEL,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant GEN-X ECHO B, Inc. d/b/a GENX’s
(“GENX”) Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 12; Filed April
29, 2013] (the “Motion”). On May 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Response [#16]. On May 31,
2013, GENX filed a Reply [#20].
On June 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Unopposed Motion to File Second Amended
Complaint and Join Additional Parties [#24] which was granted on July 2, 2013 [#26]. On
that date, the Second Amended Complaint [#27] was accepted by the Court and became
the operative pleading. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#12] 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dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); Gotfredson v.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”); AJB Props., Ltd. v. Zarda Bar-B-Q of Lenexa, LLC, No. 09-2021-JWL, 2009 WL
1140185, at *1 (D. Kan. April 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded
original complaint and “accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint
is denied as moot”).
Dated: July 9, 2013